Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The afternoon must watch – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    HYUFD, your wording is, erm, unclear - do you mean mean tactical voting is Tory party policy? Or that saving the glorious Union is party policy so you can do what you like? On that same logic you could do all sorts of other things like giving Mr Sarwar £5m to help Slab's electoral campaigning. I'll get that nice Mr Sarwar to send every Epping councillor a fundraising pack, shall I?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479
    edited September 1
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you stand for election under a party label you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

    We won't have a "manifesto". Nor does the federal party currently have a manifesto as the election was 2 years ago under a previous leader. Are Labour people now bound by the witterings of Corbyn?

    The Scottish government will propose a referendum, LibDem MSPs will vote against it, the government will win the vote. What would that have to with county councillors? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant - and again you show me a politician who has zero disagreement with the entire policy platform and I will point out that they are lying.

    It's one thing to vote against proposing a referendum. It's quite another to still oppose that referendum after the vote by the Scottish Parliament has been passed.
    I wonder if SLAB or SLID (The Tories won't) will pivot at that stage. Because once that point has been crossed it's less arguing against an indy ref, more arguing against devolved democracy itself.
    No because they stand by the principle it is for Westminster to agree to it and if the UK Tory, Labour and LD parties still oppose indyref2 so will they.

    The Tories obviously won't, you cannot get a handkerchief between Sarwar and Starmer and Cole-Hamilton and Davey either
    This sort of argument reminds me of the GOP in the USA and quite frankly the nonsense of the 2017-19 parliament. It's attempting to deny agency to Scottish voters in the same way the Brexit vote should have been annulled because parliamentarians knew best or the state legislatures should override the democratic will of each state.
    A most unbecoming argument.
    It works in Spain fine, Madrid has not even allowed the Catalan legislature one independence referendum because correctly on Union matters the central government has the final say on whether independence referendums are allowed.

    Holyrood is merely a subsidiary creation of Westminster after all
  • theProletheProle Posts: 549
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    There seems to be clear logic in @Philip_Thompson 's position: if you are still fearful of covid, despite your vaccination status, you are at liberty to spend all your time in public wearing a FFP3 mask while avoiding anywhere that agitates your fear.

    If you are not fearful, and want to try to live your life as normally as possible, then you are equally at liberty to abandon your mask.

    I fit into the latter group, but realise that some people differ.

    So what? Live and let live.

    Lol - what people may or may not be fearful of is not the issue. Public health is the issue. There are plenty of wazzocks out there denying Covid and some of them win a Darwin Award by dying from it.

    We're in the middle of another big spike of pox that isn't going away. You will of course insist that your government-mandated wayward behaviour has nothing to do with it.
    Big spike? Deaths were down this week compared to the week before and were miniscule. If that's what you're considering a big spike then I'm quite happy to live with it.
    As I said, you may be dismissive, the rest of the world is not. The pandemic (not endemic) is still ripping through the globe, with new variants being created and we know how much they are when we get them.

    We may not be dying by the thousand every day thank God. But we are still a massively infected island, infection rates remain very very high compared to most other countries and its no wonder that we remain on restricted country lists in so many places.
    I couldn't care less.

    The entire planet needs to learn to live with the virus. Of course countries that haven't as successfully handled Covid19 as Britain so are less vaccinated than us will be terrified of Delta letting rip there - if I was in New Zealand or Australia right now it'd be a real concern.

    I'm delighted that we vaccinated ourselves first ahead of the world. The rest of the world needs to catch up with us in learning to live with the virus, that's not a bad thing, its just a sign of our huge success that we got there before them.
    Got it. So our vax rates now lagging behind chunks of Europe is cause for delight, and we are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

    The problem of course is that whilst England can think like that it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree and do what we say. We're going to end up getting mandatory quarantine going anywhere off this island at this rate.
    That's only because most European countries are using the sleight of hand on measurement of what being vaccinated actually is. We count people with two doses as fully vaccinated, in most of Europe a prior infection and a single jab counts as being fully vaccinated.
    Given that one dose plus an infection seems to confer greater immunity to Delta than "double dosed", I'm struggling to see a sleight of hand here. It sounds - just like our extending of the period between doses - as a very sensible way of rationing scarce vaccine resources, and maximising protection.
    As we don't count this the same, it does mean that comparing our numbers to the French etc. is comparing apples to oranges. I'm single jabbed and have just had Covid - in France I would show up on the fully vaxed numbers, whereas here I won't until I get another jab.

    Out of interest, do they not offer second doses to those who are known to have had prior infection? Or is it just that they have moved the "what counts as fully vaxed" goalpost compared to the UK?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    @MattW FPT.
    Why are rabbits sentimentalised in Taiwan?

    They are simply a common pet, and an animal not eaten.
    My observation, which kicked off quite a discussion, was in response to someone getting grief for eating guinea pig in Peru.
    The point being that all cultures divide animals into pets, food, vermin and indifferent.
    Not always similarly, nor logically.

    Thanks. Is there a rabbit-eating history similar to how traditionally urban Chinese used to keep carp in the back garden for consumption? Compare England and the household pig fed on scraps.

    So a good comparison in some ways might actually be dogs in the UK?
    Horses probably more relevant

    The Brits sentimalise - the French eat them
    And the Swedes. I had cold sliced horse meat on my open sandwich for breakfast this morning.
    I take it your neigh joking?
    You gymkhana beat it.
    What do you have to pony up for that?
    At 22 kronor for 100 grammes, my wallet takes it at a canter.
    Can't we rein in this discussion?
    I was just getting the bit between my teeth.
    I'm sorry if colleagues are beginning to bridle at my remark.
    If only @ydoethur was here. I am sure he would be trotting out the puns faster than we could type.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Indeed. No party tolerates their candidates encouraging electors to vote for a different party.
    Except SLAB, of course.
  • kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
  • kinabalu said:

    Listening to Raab at the committee is a great way to nod off

    Bore your way out of trouble. I've seen it work.
    I suspect Raab's career is on the line as is his seat at the next election

    However, in the wider public they have seen us leave Afghanistan with no service casualties in the process, and evacuated a large number of those who qualify to be here in the UK.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    @MattW FPT.
    Why are rabbits sentimentalised in Taiwan?

    They are simply a common pet, and an animal not eaten.
    My observation, which kicked off quite a discussion, was in response to someone getting grief for eating guinea pig in Peru.
    The point being that all cultures divide animals into pets, food, vermin and indifferent.
    Not always similarly, nor logically.

    Thanks. Is there a rabbit-eating history similar to how traditionally urban Chinese used to keep carp in the back garden for consumption? Compare England and the household pig fed on scraps.

    So a good comparison in some ways might actually be dogs in the UK?
    Horses probably more relevant

    The Brits sentimalise - the French eat them
    And the Swedes. I had cold sliced horse meat on my open sandwich for breakfast this morning.
    I take it your neigh joking?
    You gymkhana beat it.
    What do you have to pony up for that?
    At 22 kronor for 100 grammes, my wallet takes it at a canter.
    Can't we rein in this discussion?
    I was just getting the bit between my teeth.
    I'm sorry if colleagues are beginning to bridle at my remark.
    If only @ydoethur was here. I am sure he would be trotting out the puns faster than we could type.
    He'd jump at it. At a gallop, too.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,982
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    And @MaxPB fpt re LFT testing in Greece.

    Very very easy. You will get the address (google or recommendation from your hotel) of a friendly doctor's practice, you will rock up, they will wave the swab around in the general vicinity of your face and pronounce you fit to fly.

    €25 very badly spent but what can you do. I slightly bridled at the fact that were it positive you would NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLY INTO YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

    Ponder that, @contrarian -haters.

    You are not allowed to fly while having a communicatable disease
    Is the flu a communicable disease?
    In the sense of being notifiable to the public authorities rather than infectious
    So are you allowed to fly while having a communicable disease?
    See @Philip_Thompson at 14:01
    Yes I saw that. Can you post me the bit about not being allowed to fly while having a communicable disease.

    Does this mean that people have never flown or been allowed to fly while they have had the flu?
    Notifiable. Not flu.
    Thanks. Makes sense. Can you provide a link to the law pls.
    The power to make regulations is under s45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which was inserted by s129 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. There have been subsequent amendments in relation to Covid by the various Acts of that name which make it clear that it is covered.
    Thanks. Charles said that you are not allowed to fly if you have a "communicable disease". I was looking for the specific ordinance that states that. I found this which looks for all the world like it would provide the SoS with the powers to do so.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22

    On the government website it says "You must have proof of a negative COVID-19 test to travel to England from abroad." but I wondered what the context of it was.

    Because if the flu is a notifiable disease as per @Carnyx's link then we have never been in a position whereby a notifiable disease has prevented entry to this country before.
    45B Health protection regulations: international travel etc.
    (1) The appropriate Minister may by regulations make provision–
    (a) for preventing danger to public health from vessels, aircraft, trains or other conveyances arriving at any place,
    (b) for preventing the spread of infection or contamination by means of any vessel, aircraft, train or other conveyance leaving any place, and
    (c) for giving effect to any international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of infection or contamination.
    (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision–
    (a) for the detention of conveyances,
    (b) for the medical examination, detention, isolation or quarantine of persons,
    (c) for the inspection, analysis, retention, isolation, quarantine or destruction of things,
    (d) for the disinfection or decontamination of conveyances, persons or things or the application of other sanitary measures,
    (e) for prohibiting or regulating the arrival or departure of conveyances and the entry or exit of persons or things,
    (f) imposing duties on masters, pilots, train managers and other persons on board conveyances and on owners and managers of ports, airports and other points of entry, and
    (g) requiring persons to provide information or answer questions (including information or questions relating to their health).

    That is at least one power to put these sort of restrictions in. Its probably not the only one.
    Yes I saw that. Has he done any of them previously or indeed now? ie is there a regulation to this effect in place now? Has there been previously?
    There's hundreds of them. A sample
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1409
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1219
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 10) Regulations 2021/583
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/457
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wales) Regulations 2020/308
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020/129
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/452
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/252
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/670
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021/731
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021/766
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021/795
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2021/865
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/914
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2021/923
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 9) Regulations 2021/966
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/589
    Yes. For Coronavirus. I get that. What about any other "notifiable" disease? The flu for example?
  • HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Indeed. No party tolerates their candidates encouraging electors to vote for a different party.
    With the exception of the Tories. Telling Tory voters to vote tactically against Tory candidates is how you become chair of a Tory Association apparently. And then have the hypocritical gall to start lecturing others about loyalty to the party line.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    There seems to be clear logic in @Philip_Thompson 's position: if you are still fearful of covid, despite your vaccination status, you are at liberty to spend all your time in public wearing a FFP3 mask while avoiding anywhere that agitates your fear.

    If you are not fearful, and want to try to live your life as normally as possible, then you are equally at liberty to abandon your mask.

    I fit into the latter group, but realise that some people differ.

    So what? Live and let live.

    Lol - what people may or may not be fearful of is not the issue. Public health is the issue. There are plenty of wazzocks out there denying Covid and some of them win a Darwin Award by dying from it.

    We're in the middle of another big spike of pox that isn't going away. You will of course insist that your government-mandated wayward behaviour has nothing to do with it.
    Big spike? Deaths were down this week compared to the week before and were miniscule. If that's what you're considering a big spike then I'm quite happy to live with it.
    As I said, you may be dismissive, the rest of the world is not. The pandemic (not endemic) is still ripping through the globe, with new variants being created and we know how much they are when we get them.

    We may not be dying by the thousand every day thank God. But we are still a massively infected island, infection rates remain very very high compared to most other countries and its no wonder that we remain on restricted country lists in so many places.
    I couldn't care less.

    The entire planet needs to learn to live with the virus. Of course countries that haven't as successfully handled Covid19 as Britain so are less vaccinated than us will be terrified of Delta letting rip there - if I was in New Zealand or Australia right now it'd be a real concern.

    I'm delighted that we vaccinated ourselves first ahead of the world. The rest of the world needs to catch up with us in learning to live with the virus, that's not a bad thing, its just a sign of our huge success that we got there before them.
    Got it. So our vax rates now lagging behind chunks of Europe is cause for delight, and we are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

    The problem of course is that whilst England can think like that it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree and do what we say. We're going to end up getting mandatory quarantine going anywhere off this island at this rate.
    That's only because most European countries are using the sleight of hand on measurement of what being vaccinated actually is. We count people with two doses as fully vaccinated, in most of Europe a prior infection and a single jab counts as being fully vaccinated.
    Given that one dose plus an infection seems to confer greater immunity to Delta than "double dosed", I'm struggling to see a sleight of hand here. It sounds - just like our extending of the period between doses - as a very sensible way of rationing scarce vaccine resources, and maximising protection.
    Our method produces more double dosed + previously infected though. Which are .... again more immune than one dose + infection.
    Given that infection with original variant Covid seems to confer 99% protection against reinfection with Delta, I can't possibly imagine that the difference is great enough to justify getting all upset.
    Blimey, is it really that high ?

    Do you get to herd immunity/endemic quicker with a naive population ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,459
    Alistair said:

    Just working my way through the implications of the Texas abortion bill.

    As far as I can tell a rapist would now be able to successfully sue anyone involved in his victim's abortion if she chose to get one. Unless there is a specific restriction on that I haven't read about.

    It's an absolute shocker. I wonder what the result of a female only referendum in Texas would be?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    How can “Scottish Labour” take a decision “at UK level”?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Brains Trust:

    I'm on the lookout for a compact digital or mirrorless camera which has a reasonable performance for architecture, and particularly in low light.

    Does anyone have any recommendations?

    Budget is really what it needs to be, but I'm keen to stay some way below £1000 if I can.

    Thanks

    I have a Panasonic TZ100 which is excellent in low light, as it has a larger sensor chip than most compacts. It has reasonable wide angle capabilities and less than £400 now.

    DP Review does good reviews with examples when looking for cameras. Sensor size matters a lot at low light levels.
    If you're doing pictures of architecture, as opposed to something that moves, the most cost effective low light solution is a tripod.
    The problem I had with buildings was distance when taking pics for my work - higher up was further away so buildings seemed to taper into the distance especially when looking up. There was some sort of solution for this but I forget what it was and that was back in the days of un-compact SLRs with 35mm film and removable lenses.
  • dr_spyn said:

    Just as well Sir Edward Grey wasn't grilled by MPs about his extensive knowledge of Bosnia Herzegovina in 1914.

    The Express carried a surprisingly useful piece on Grey on the anniversary of the Great War.
    Great War Centenary: Sir Edward Grey - the possible spark for the Great War
    SIR EDWARD GREY is known to everyone because of a single, immortal quotation.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/473940/Great-War-Centenary-Sir-Edward-Grey-the-possible-spark-for-the-Great-War
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    edited September 1
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you stand for election under a party label you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

    We won't have a "manifesto". Nor does the federal party currently have a manifesto as the election was 2 years ago under a previous leader. Are Labour people now bound by the witterings of Corbyn?

    The Scottish government will propose a referendum, LibDem MSPs will vote against it, the government will win the vote. What would that have to with county councillors? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant - and again you show me a politician who has zero disagreement with the entire policy platform and I will point out that they are lying.

    It's one thing to vote against proposing a referendum. It's quite another to still oppose that referendum after the vote by the Scottish Parliament has been passed.
    I wonder if SLAB or SLID (The Tories won't) will pivot at that stage. Because once that point has been crossed it's less arguing against an indy ref, more arguing against devolved democracy itself.
    That is an red line SLab and SLD cannot afford to cross. That would shift them from being anti-sovereignty to anti-Scottish
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,012
    Patrick Harvie, 22 July:

    The UK Government is destroying public trust, as well as increasing the human cost in lives and health harm.......

    In the wake of the existing generational injustice made worse by Covid, vaccine passports would deepen discrimination against those who have not yet been vaccinated. It would deepen inequality at a time when the country needs collective effort. Worse still, the confusion allows the anti-vaxxers who marched in London to spread misinformation about the safety and purpose of the vaccine itself.


    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19462951.vaccine-passports-inequality-will-deepen-jag-proof-needed/

    Lets see what tune he sings when Scotland does it....
  • theProletheProle Posts: 549
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Just working my way through the implications of the Texas abortion bill.

    As far as I can tell a rapist would now be able to successfully sue anyone involved in his victim's abortion if she chose to get one. Unless there is a specific restriction on that I haven't read about.

    The polling has suggested Texans back it though 48% to 42% with 68% of Republicans in favour (and Republicans hold the governor's mansion and control the Texas state legislature).
    https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/19/near-majority-texans-favor-outlawing-abortion-after-six-weeks-ut-tt/

    If she got an abortion in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy it would still be legal
    It is an abysmal law which invites frivolous prosecutions which could bankrupt individuals or organisations, since it allows any private individual to bring a case, and explicitly prevents any defendant from recovering their legal costs.
    Isn't it also the inevitable result of conducting activities which should have been matters of legislation by "lawfare" and judicial activism instead.
    It's not a pretty piece of legislation (although one has to admire the ingenuity of whoever came up with it as a way of sidestepping the current legal situation), but it's also hardly surprising we've ended up here, when all other roads are blocked.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526

    Patrick Harvie, 22 July:

    The UK Government is destroying public trust, as well as increasing the human cost in lives and health harm.......

    In the wake of the existing generational injustice made worse by Covid, vaccine passports would deepen discrimination against those who have not yet been vaccinated. It would deepen inequality at a time when the country needs collective effort. Worse still, the confusion allows the anti-vaxxers who marched in London to spread misinformation about the safety and purpose of the vaccine itself.


    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19462951.vaccine-passports-inequality-will-deepen-jag-proof-needed/

    Lets see what tune he sings when Scotland does it....

    They've agreed to differ with the SNP on a range of matters. Can't recall if this is one, mind.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,496
    Carnyx said:

    The problem I had with buildings was distance when taking pics for my work - higher up was further away so buildings seemed to taper into the distance especially when looking up. There was some sort of solution for this but I forget what it was and that was back in the days of un-compact SLRs with 35mm film and removable lenses.

    The Old World solution was a camera in which you could tilt the plane of the film to match the building and offset the lens.

    There is probably a digital 'filter' to do that now...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
  • Patrick Harvie, 22 July:

    The UK Government is destroying public trust, as well as increasing the human cost in lives and health harm.......

    In the wake of the existing generational injustice made worse by Covid, vaccine passports would deepen discrimination against those who have not yet been vaccinated. It would deepen inequality at a time when the country needs collective effort. Worse still, the confusion allows the anti-vaxxers who marched in London to spread misinformation about the safety and purpose of the vaccine itself.


    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19462951.vaccine-passports-inequality-will-deepen-jag-proof-needed/

    Lets see what tune he sings when Scotland does it....

    We're much further along from 22nd July. I am quite happy to "deepen discrimination against those who have not yet been vaccinated" as the opportunity for every adult to get jabbed is there.

    Vaccine passports though open the door to all kinds of other "your papers please" authoritarianism and should be opposed.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479
    edited September 1

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you stand for election under a party label you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

    We won't have a "manifesto". Nor does the federal party currently have a manifesto as the election was 2 years ago under a previous leader. Are Labour people now bound by the witterings of Corbyn?

    The Scottish government will propose a referendum, LibDem MSPs will vote against it, the government will win the vote. What would that have to with county councillors? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant - and again you show me a politician who has zero disagreement with the entire policy platform and I will point out that they are lying.

    It's one thing to vote against proposing a referendum. It's quite another to still oppose that referendum after the vote by the Scottish Parliament has been passed.
    I wonder if SLAB or SLID (The Tories won't) will pivot at that stage. Because once that point has been crossed it's less arguing against an indy ref, more arguing against devolved democracy itself.
    That is an red line SLab and SLD cannot afford to cross. That would shift them from being anti-sovereignty to anti-Scottish
    Hardly, only 35% of Scots want indyref2 before the end of 2023 as Sturgeon does.


    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-split-on-snp-mandate-for-referendum-with-independence-top-priority-for-just-one-in-11-3238015
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    theProle said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    There seems to be clear logic in @Philip_Thompson 's position: if you are still fearful of covid, despite your vaccination status, you are at liberty to spend all your time in public wearing a FFP3 mask while avoiding anywhere that agitates your fear.

    If you are not fearful, and want to try to live your life as normally as possible, then you are equally at liberty to abandon your mask.

    I fit into the latter group, but realise that some people differ.

    So what? Live and let live.

    Lol - what people may or may not be fearful of is not the issue. Public health is the issue. There are plenty of wazzocks out there denying Covid and some of them win a Darwin Award by dying from it.

    We're in the middle of another big spike of pox that isn't going away. You will of course insist that your government-mandated wayward behaviour has nothing to do with it.
    Big spike? Deaths were down this week compared to the week before and were miniscule. If that's what you're considering a big spike then I'm quite happy to live with it.
    As I said, you may be dismissive, the rest of the world is not. The pandemic (not endemic) is still ripping through the globe, with new variants being created and we know how much they are when we get them.

    We may not be dying by the thousand every day thank God. But we are still a massively infected island, infection rates remain very very high compared to most other countries and its no wonder that we remain on restricted country lists in so many places.
    I couldn't care less.

    The entire planet needs to learn to live with the virus. Of course countries that haven't as successfully handled Covid19 as Britain so are less vaccinated than us will be terrified of Delta letting rip there - if I was in New Zealand or Australia right now it'd be a real concern.

    I'm delighted that we vaccinated ourselves first ahead of the world. The rest of the world needs to catch up with us in learning to live with the virus, that's not a bad thing, its just a sign of our huge success that we got there before them.
    Got it. So our vax rates now lagging behind chunks of Europe is cause for delight, and we are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

    The problem of course is that whilst England can think like that it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree and do what we say. We're going to end up getting mandatory quarantine going anywhere off this island at this rate.
    That's only because most European countries are using the sleight of hand on measurement of what being vaccinated actually is. We count people with two doses as fully vaccinated, in most of Europe a prior infection and a single jab counts as being fully vaccinated.
    Given that one dose plus an infection seems to confer greater immunity to Delta than "double dosed", I'm struggling to see a sleight of hand here. It sounds - just like our extending of the period between doses - as a very sensible way of rationing scarce vaccine resources, and maximising protection.
    As we don't count this the same, it does mean that comparing our numbers to the French etc. is comparing apples to oranges. I'm single jabbed and have just had Covid - in France I would show up on the fully vaxed numbers, whereas here I won't until I get another jab.

    Out of interest, do they not offer second doses to those who are known to have had prior infection? Or is it just that they have moved the "what counts as fully vaxed" goalpost compared to the UK?
    Giving a second dose to someone who already has 99+% immunity against Delta seems like a pretty stupid waste of resources to me. And I suspect that is their medical advice: people who've been infected and received a dose of a vaccine are highly protected, and do not need an additional vaccine dose.

    Look, if you want to truly compare apples-to-apples, then look at number of doses given per 100 people. But I personally think their decision is the right one, and we should have done similar. Just as EU countries should have followed our decision to lengthen the time between doses.

    There's no monopoly on being right. We were right with the dosing gap. They're right not to waste second doses on people who already have very high levels of protection.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    Scott_xP said:

    Carnyx said:

    The problem I had with buildings was distance when taking pics for my work - higher up was further away so buildings seemed to taper into the distance especially when looking up. There was some sort of solution for this but I forget what it was and that was back in the days of un-compact SLRs with 35mm film and removable lenses.

    The Old World solution was a camera in which you could tilt the plane of the film to match the building and offset the lens.

    There is probably a digital 'filter' to do that now...
    That's it, thanks!

    It's worth checking for that digital solution - the problem used to annoy me a lot.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    MattW said:

    Brains Trust:

    I'm on the lookout for a compact digital or mirrorless camera which has a reasonable performance for architecture, and particularly in low light.

    Does anyone have any recommendations?

    Budget is really what it needs to be, but I'm keen to stay some way below £1000 if I can.

    Thanks

    I have a Panasonic TZ100 which is excellent in low light, as it has a larger sensor chip than most compacts. It has reasonable wide angle capabilities and less than £400 now.

    DP Review does good reviews with examples when looking for cameras. Sensor size matters a lot at low light levels.
    If you're doing pictures of architecture, as opposed to something that moves, the most cost effective low light solution is a tripod.
    I would agree with that, though many tourist sites ban tripods, so it depends quite what you want to photograph.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,188

    dr_spyn said:

    Just as well Sir Edward Grey wasn't grilled by MPs about his extensive knowledge of Bosnia Herzegovina in 1914.

    The Express carried a surprisingly useful piece on Grey on the anniversary of the Great War.
    Great War Centenary: Sir Edward Grey - the possible spark for the Great War
    SIR EDWARD GREY is known to everyone because of a single, immortal quotation.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/473940/Great-War-Centenary-Sir-Edward-Grey-the-possible-spark-for-the-Great-War
    "Nearly every malodorous myth about the Great War can be traced back to the literary septic tank that is Lloyd George’s War Memoirs."

    An article in the Express that is interesting and amusing?!!??

    End Times....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,459

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,038

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    @MattW FPT.
    Why are rabbits sentimentalised in Taiwan?

    They are simply a common pet, and an animal not eaten.
    My observation, which kicked off quite a discussion, was in response to someone getting grief for eating guinea pig in Peru.
    The point being that all cultures divide animals into pets, food, vermin and indifferent.
    Not always similarly, nor logically.

    Thanks. Is there a rabbit-eating history similar to how traditionally urban Chinese used to keep carp in the back garden for consumption? Compare England and the household pig fed on scraps.

    So a good comparison in some ways might actually be dogs in the UK?
    Horses probably more relevant

    The Brits sentimalise - the French eat them
    And the Swedes. I had cold sliced horse meat on my open sandwich for breakfast this morning.
    I take it your neigh joking?
    You gymkhana beat it.
    What do you have to pony up for that?
    At 22 kronor for 100 grammes, my wallet takes it at a canter.
    Can't we rein in this discussion?
    I was just getting the bit between my teeth.
    I'm sorry if colleagues are beginning to bridle at my remark.
    Surprised @ydoethur isn't around to snaffle the punning opportunity.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,991
    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    And @MaxPB fpt re LFT testing in Greece.

    Very very easy. You will get the address (google or recommendation from your hotel) of a friendly doctor's practice, you will rock up, they will wave the swab around in the general vicinity of your face and pronounce you fit to fly.

    €25 very badly spent but what can you do. I slightly bridled at the fact that were it positive you would NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLY INTO YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

    Ponder that, @contrarian -haters.

    You are not allowed to fly while having a communicatable disease
    Is the flu a communicable disease?
    In the sense of being notifiable to the public authorities rather than infectious
    So are you allowed to fly while having a communicable disease?
    See @Philip_Thompson at 14:01
    Yes I saw that. Can you post me the bit about not being allowed to fly while having a communicable disease.

    Does this mean that people have never flown or been allowed to fly while they have had the flu?
    Notifiable. Not flu.
    Thanks. Makes sense. Can you provide a link to the law pls.
    The power to make regulations is under s45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which was inserted by s129 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. There have been subsequent amendments in relation to Covid by the various Acts of that name which make it clear that it is covered.
    Thanks. Charles said that you are not allowed to fly if you have a "communicable disease". I was looking for the specific ordinance that states that. I found this which looks for all the world like it would provide the SoS with the powers to do so.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22

    On the government website it says "You must have proof of a negative COVID-19 test to travel to England from abroad." but I wondered what the context of it was.

    Because if the flu is a notifiable disease as per @Carnyx's link then we have never been in a position whereby a notifiable disease has prevented entry to this country before.
    45B Health protection regulations: international travel etc.
    (1) The appropriate Minister may by regulations make provision–
    (a) for preventing danger to public health from vessels, aircraft, trains or other conveyances arriving at any place,
    (b) for preventing the spread of infection or contamination by means of any vessel, aircraft, train or other conveyance leaving any place, and
    (c) for giving effect to any international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of infection or contamination.
    (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision–
    (a) for the detention of conveyances,
    (b) for the medical examination, detention, isolation or quarantine of persons,
    (c) for the inspection, analysis, retention, isolation, quarantine or destruction of things,
    (d) for the disinfection or decontamination of conveyances, persons or things or the application of other sanitary measures,
    (e) for prohibiting or regulating the arrival or departure of conveyances and the entry or exit of persons or things,
    (f) imposing duties on masters, pilots, train managers and other persons on board conveyances and on owners and managers of ports, airports and other points of entry, and
    (g) requiring persons to provide information or answer questions (including information or questions relating to their health).

    That is at least one power to put these sort of restrictions in. Its probably not the only one.
    Yes I saw that. Has he done any of them previously or indeed now? ie is there a regulation to this effect in place now? Has there been previously?
    There's hundreds of them. A sample
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1409
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1219
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 10) Regulations 2021/583
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/457
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wales) Regulations 2020/308
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020/129
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/452
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/252
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/670
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021/731
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021/766
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021/795
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2021/865
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/914
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2021/923
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 9) Regulations 2021/966
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/589
    Typically fascinating lawyer's post. A list. :)
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,188
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    And @MaxPB fpt re LFT testing in Greece.

    Very very easy. You will get the address (google or recommendation from your hotel) of a friendly doctor's practice, you will rock up, they will wave the swab around in the general vicinity of your face and pronounce you fit to fly.

    €25 very badly spent but what can you do. I slightly bridled at the fact that were it positive you would NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLY INTO YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

    Ponder that, @contrarian -haters.

    You are not allowed to fly while having a communicatable disease
    Is the flu a communicable disease?
    In the sense of being notifiable to the public authorities rather than infectious
    So are you allowed to fly while having a communicable disease?
    See @Philip_Thompson at 14:01
    Yes I saw that. Can you post me the bit about not being allowed to fly while having a communicable disease.

    Does this mean that people have never flown or been allowed to fly while they have had the flu?
    Yep, I'm calling BS on that. I have literally sat next to people who obviously have the Common Cold. No hard words from the stewardess as she handed them the balsam tissues.
    I meant notifiable.
    Ah, something of a truism then: it's forbidden to fly with a disease that it is prohibited to fly with.
    I was in a hurry so truncated my response

    @topping was all angry that a citizen with a notifiable disease wasn’t allowed to fly to their own country

    I said that they weren’t allowed to fly.

    So it’s not a case of outrageously restricting a citizen’s liberty. It’s a basic principle of public health that applies to everyone
    Charles I just can't find the legislation which says people with a notifiable disease (you of course said "communicable" previously) are not allowed to fly. Not in the "International Health Regulations" or anywhere. But I am a limited googler so I thought you might know as you did after all state it to start with, and with your usual authority.

    On Covid the government says explicitly you need a negative test to enter the UK.

    I just thought this was unprecendented. I have never heard of people being refused entry to a country but I look forward to a blessed link which shows I am wrong.

    Wouldn't be the first time.
    Yellow fever, pratique, etc. Plenty of precedent. Highly relevant to covid, at least in some states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Princess
    Quarantining travellers and banning ships from disease ridden locations is ancient, ancient stuff.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Carnyx said:

    The problem I had with buildings was distance when taking pics for my work - higher up was further away so buildings seemed to taper into the distance especially when looking up. There was some sort of solution for this but I forget what it was and that was back in the days of un-compact SLRs with 35mm film and removable lenses.

    The Old World solution was a camera in which you could tilt the plane of the film to match the building and offset the lens.

    There is probably a digital 'filter' to do that now...
    That's it, thanks!

    It's worth checking for that digital solution - the problem used to annoy me a lot.
    The other simple way to correct verticals is to keep your camera level, and then crop the image.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    It wouldn't, No even if it won would win more narrowly than in 2014 most likely and the Nationalists would then start pushing for indyref3 the next day.

    If you give in once that a generation does not mean a generation what is to stop Nats believing you would give in to them again?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,038
    kinabalu said:

    Alistair said:

    Just working my way through the implications of the Texas abortion bill.

    As far as I can tell a rapist would now be able to successfully sue anyone involved in his victim's abortion if she chose to get one. Unless there is a specific restriction on that I haven't read about.

    It's an absolute shocker. I wonder what the result of a female only referendum in Texas would be?
    A relatively slim majority against, from what I can see from the polling.
    Rather larger if you were to restrict that to the under 45s - those actually affected.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,012
    Carnyx said:

    Patrick Harvie, 22 July:

    The UK Government is destroying public trust, as well as increasing the human cost in lives and health harm.......

    In the wake of the existing generational injustice made worse by Covid, vaccine passports would deepen discrimination against those who have not yet been vaccinated. It would deepen inequality at a time when the country needs collective effort. Worse still, the confusion allows the anti-vaxxers who marched in London to spread misinformation about the safety and purpose of the vaccine itself.


    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19462951.vaccine-passports-inequality-will-deepen-jag-proof-needed/

    Lets see what tune he sings when Scotland does it....

    They've agreed to differ with the SNP on a range of matters. Can't recall if this is one, mind.
    Maybe he'll see the light like Humza Yousaf?

    Humza Yousaf has talked down the prospect of vaccine passports being introduced in Scotland as a way of forcing younger people to receive covid jabs.

    The health secretary said he was "sceptical" of any plan which would mean Scots turned away at the doors of pubs or nightclubs if they could not prove they were fully vaccinated against coronavirus.


    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-sceptical-over-vaccine-24581330

    It will be funny if Scotland introduces vaccine passports after Nationalist politicians initially opposed them when England said they'd do it, and England ends up not doing it.

    To add to the hilarity, NHS England vaccine certificates have QR codes making such "passports" much easier than NHS Scotland which doesn't.
  • HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you stand for election under a party label you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

    We won't have a "manifesto". Nor does the federal party currently have a manifesto as the election was 2 years ago under a previous leader. Are Labour people now bound by the witterings of Corbyn?

    The Scottish government will propose a referendum, LibDem MSPs will vote against it, the government will win the vote. What would that have to with county councillors? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant - and again you show me a politician who has zero disagreement with the entire policy platform and I will point out that they are lying.

    It's one thing to vote against proposing a referendum. It's quite another to still oppose that referendum after the vote by the Scottish Parliament has been passed.
    I wonder if SLAB or SLID (The Tories won't) will pivot at that stage. Because once that point has been crossed it's less arguing against an indy ref, more arguing against devolved democracy itself.
    That is an red line SLab and SLD cannot afford to cross. That would shift them from being anti-sovereignty to anti-Scottish
    Hardly, only 35% of Scots want indyref2 before the end of 2023 as Sturgeon does


    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-split-on-snp-mandate-for-referendum-with-independence-top-priority-for-just-one-in-11-3238015
    Laughable. We had an actual election this May. The results of that not only trump any opinion poll, but also does not contradict that poll. 35% not seeing an early referendum as a priority before 2023 is not the same as not supporting having one before 2026.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    @MattW FPT.
    Why are rabbits sentimentalised in Taiwan?

    They are simply a common pet, and an animal not eaten.
    My observation, which kicked off quite a discussion, was in response to someone getting grief for eating guinea pig in Peru.
    The point being that all cultures divide animals into pets, food, vermin and indifferent.
    Not always similarly, nor logically.

    Thanks. Is there a rabbit-eating history similar to how traditionally urban Chinese used to keep carp in the back garden for consumption? Compare England and the household pig fed on scraps.

    So a good comparison in some ways might actually be dogs in the UK?
    Horses probably more relevant

    The Brits sentimalise - the French eat them
    And the Swedes. I had cold sliced horse meat on my open sandwich for breakfast this morning.
    I take it your neigh joking?
    You gymkhana beat it.
    What do you have to pony up for that?
    At 22 kronor for 100 grammes, my wallet takes it at a canter.
    Can't we rein in this discussion?
    I was just getting the bit between my teeth.
    I'm sorry if colleagues are beginning to bridle at my remark.
    Surprised @ydoethur isn't around to snaffle the punning opportunity.
    Perhaps he is out to pasture?
  • Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    And laughably he then tries to lecture me on loyalty to party.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    There seems to be clear logic in @Philip_Thompson 's position: if you are still fearful of covid, despite your vaccination status, you are at liberty to spend all your time in public wearing a FFP3 mask while avoiding anywhere that agitates your fear.

    If you are not fearful, and want to try to live your life as normally as possible, then you are equally at liberty to abandon your mask.

    I fit into the latter group, but realise that some people differ.

    So what? Live and let live.

    Lol - what people may or may not be fearful of is not the issue. Public health is the issue. There are plenty of wazzocks out there denying Covid and some of them win a Darwin Award by dying from it.

    We're in the middle of another big spike of pox that isn't going away. You will of course insist that your government-mandated wayward behaviour has nothing to do with it.
    Big spike? Deaths were down this week compared to the week before and were miniscule. If that's what you're considering a big spike then I'm quite happy to live with it.
    As I said, you may be dismissive, the rest of the world is not. The pandemic (not endemic) is still ripping through the globe, with new variants being created and we know how much they are when we get them.

    We may not be dying by the thousand every day thank God. But we are still a massively infected island, infection rates remain very very high compared to most other countries and its no wonder that we remain on restricted country lists in so many places.
    I couldn't care less.

    The entire planet needs to learn to live with the virus. Of course countries that haven't as successfully handled Covid19 as Britain so are less vaccinated than us will be terrified of Delta letting rip there - if I was in New Zealand or Australia right now it'd be a real concern.

    I'm delighted that we vaccinated ourselves first ahead of the world. The rest of the world needs to catch up with us in learning to live with the virus, that's not a bad thing, its just a sign of our huge success that we got there before them.
    Got it. So our vax rates now lagging behind chunks of Europe is cause for delight, and we are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

    The problem of course is that whilst England can think like that it doesn't mean the rest of the world has to agree and do what we say. We're going to end up getting mandatory quarantine going anywhere off this island at this rate.
    That's only because most European countries are using the sleight of hand on measurement of what being vaccinated actually is. We count people with two doses as fully vaccinated, in most of Europe a prior infection and a single jab counts as being fully vaccinated.
    Given that one dose plus an infection seems to confer greater immunity to Delta than "double dosed", I'm struggling to see a sleight of hand here. It sounds - just like our extending of the period between doses - as a very sensible way of rationing scarce vaccine resources, and maximising protection.
    Our method produces more double dosed + previously infected though. Which are .... again more immune than one dose + infection.
    Given that infection with original variant Covid seems to confer 99% protection against reinfection with Delta, I can't possibly imagine that the difference is great enough to justify getting all upset.
    Blimey, is it really that high ?

    Do you get to herd immunity/endemic quicker with a naive population ?
    "Those who received both doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in January or February of this year had a 13.06-fold increased risk (95% CI 8.08-21.11) of SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta variant compared to those who had COVID-19 during the same time period, reported Sivan Gazit, MD, MA, of Maccabi Healthcare Services in Tel Aviv, and colleagues."

    Infection is 13x better at preventing Delta cases than the Pfizer jab.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479
    edited September 1
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes for there, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,038
    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Carnyx said:

    The problem I had with buildings was distance when taking pics for my work - higher up was further away so buildings seemed to taper into the distance especially when looking up. There was some sort of solution for this but I forget what it was and that was back in the days of un-compact SLRs with 35mm film and removable lenses.

    The Old World solution was a camera in which you could tilt the plane of the film to match the building and offset the lens.

    There is probably a digital 'filter' to do that now...
    That's it, thanks!

    It's worth checking for that digital solution - the problem used to annoy me a lot.
    Tilt/shift lenses are still widely available (though rather expensive).
    Easy to adjust digitally, though.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 79
    HYUFD said:

    PJH said:

    I wonder why Yoons in a far away country of which we know far too fecking much are telling an LD who actually lives in Scotland what he can and can't support? Weird.

    There is nothing weird about commenting on a candidate standing for election in direct contravention of the party's line
    That seems odd coming from a Tory. My local MP has generally stood in direct opposition to the party line on Europe, certainly in 2010 and 2017.
    Any Tory parliamentary candidates (including incumbent MPs) who were not willing to vote for Brexit were deselected before the 2019 general election
    Indeed. It wasn't a problem in his case!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you stand for election under a party label you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

    We won't have a "manifesto". Nor does the federal party currently have a manifesto as the election was 2 years ago under a previous leader. Are Labour people now bound by the witterings of Corbyn?

    The Scottish government will propose a referendum, LibDem MSPs will vote against it, the government will win the vote. What would that have to with county councillors? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant - and again you show me a politician who has zero disagreement with the entire policy platform and I will point out that they are lying.

    It's one thing to vote against proposing a referendum. It's quite another to still oppose that referendum after the vote by the Scottish Parliament has been passed.
    I wonder if SLAB or SLID (The Tories won't) will pivot at that stage. Because once that point has been crossed it's less arguing against an indy ref, more arguing against devolved democracy itself.
    That is an red line SLab and SLD cannot afford to cross. That would shift them from being anti-sovereignty to anti-Scottish
    Hardly, only 35% of Scots want indyref2 before the end of 2023 as Sturgeon does


    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-split-on-snp-mandate-for-referendum-with-independence-top-priority-for-just-one-in-11-3238015
    Laughable. We had an actual election this May. The results of that not only trump any opinion poll, but also does not contradict that poll. 35% not seeing an early referendum as a priority before 2023 is not the same as not supporting having one before 2026.
    2026 will be after the next UK general election, Starmer may even be UK PM by then in which case if he wants to grant one that would be his decision
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    dr_spyn said:

    Just as well Sir Edward Grey wasn't grilled by MPs about his extensive knowledge of Bosnia Herzegovina in 1914.

    The Express carried a surprisingly useful piece on Grey on the anniversary of the Great War.
    Great War Centenary: Sir Edward Grey - the possible spark for the Great War
    SIR EDWARD GREY is known to everyone because of a single, immortal quotation.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/world-war-1/473940/Great-War-Centenary-Sir-Edward-Grey-the-possible-spark-for-the-Great-War
    "Nearly every malodorous myth about the Great War can be traced back to the literary septic tank that is Lloyd George’s War Memoirs."

    An article in the Express that is interesting and amusing?!!??

    End Times....
    Another whose reputation was utterly trashed by Lloyd George, of course, was Sir Douglas Haig.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,324
    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    @MattW FPT.
    Why are rabbits sentimentalised in Taiwan?

    They are simply a common pet, and an animal not eaten.
    My observation, which kicked off quite a discussion, was in response to someone getting grief for eating guinea pig in Peru.
    The point being that all cultures divide animals into pets, food, vermin and indifferent.
    Not always similarly, nor logically.

    Thanks. Is there a rabbit-eating history similar to how traditionally urban Chinese used to keep carp in the back garden for consumption? Compare England and the household pig fed on scraps.

    So a good comparison in some ways might actually be dogs in the UK?
    Horses probably more relevant

    The Brits sentimalise - the French eat them
    And the Swedes. I had cold sliced horse meat on my open sandwich for breakfast this morning.
    I take it your neigh joking?
    Was it the mane ingredient?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594
    Link to a CNN report on the loons of Alabama who wont get vaxxed.

    "How much testing do you think would be enough to persuade you it was worth using the vaccine?"

    "About ten years."

    Some of them don't even believe Trump really has taken the vax even though he said he had. The Trumpsters are so far down the rabbit hole they don't even believe their own cult leader. Jeez.

    https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1432962006508785668
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    And @MaxPB fpt re LFT testing in Greece.

    Very very easy. You will get the address (google or recommendation from your hotel) of a friendly doctor's practice, you will rock up, they will wave the swab around in the general vicinity of your face and pronounce you fit to fly.

    €25 very badly spent but what can you do. I slightly bridled at the fact that were it positive you would NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLY INTO YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

    Ponder that, @contrarian -haters.

    You are not allowed to fly while having a communicatable disease
    Is the flu a communicable disease?
    In the sense of being notifiable to the public authorities rather than infectious
    So are you allowed to fly while having a communicable disease?
    See @Philip_Thompson at 14:01
    Yes I saw that. Can you post me the bit about not being allowed to fly while having a communicable disease.

    Does this mean that people have never flown or been allowed to fly while they have had the flu?
    Notifiable. Not flu.
    Thanks. Makes sense. Can you provide a link to the law pls.
    The power to make regulations is under s45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which was inserted by s129 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. There have been subsequent amendments in relation to Covid by the various Acts of that name which make it clear that it is covered.
    Thanks. Charles said that you are not allowed to fly if you have a "communicable disease". I was looking for the specific ordinance that states that. I found this which looks for all the world like it would provide the SoS with the powers to do so.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22

    On the government website it says "You must have proof of a negative COVID-19 test to travel to England from abroad." but I wondered what the context of it was.

    Because if the flu is a notifiable disease as per @Carnyx's link then we have never been in a position whereby a notifiable disease has prevented entry to this country before.
    45B Health protection regulations: international travel etc.
    (1) The appropriate Minister may by regulations make provision–
    (a) for preventing danger to public health from vessels, aircraft, trains or other conveyances arriving at any place,
    (b) for preventing the spread of infection or contamination by means of any vessel, aircraft, train or other conveyance leaving any place, and
    (c) for giving effect to any international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of infection or contamination.
    (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision–
    (a) for the detention of conveyances,
    (b) for the medical examination, detention, isolation or quarantine of persons,
    (c) for the inspection, analysis, retention, isolation, quarantine or destruction of things,
    (d) for the disinfection or decontamination of conveyances, persons or things or the application of other sanitary measures,
    (e) for prohibiting or regulating the arrival or departure of conveyances and the entry or exit of persons or things,
    (f) imposing duties on masters, pilots, train managers and other persons on board conveyances and on owners and managers of ports, airports and other points of entry, and
    (g) requiring persons to provide information or answer questions (including information or questions relating to their health).

    That is at least one power to put these sort of restrictions in. Its probably not the only one.
    Yes I saw that. Has he done any of them previously or indeed now? ie is there a regulation to this effect in place now? Has there been previously?
    There's hundreds of them. A sample
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1409
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1219
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 10) Regulations 2021/583
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/457
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wales) Regulations 2020/308
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020/129
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/452
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/252
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/670
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021/731
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021/766
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021/795
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2021/865
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/914
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2021/923
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 9) Regulations 2021/966
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/589
    Typically fascinating lawyer's post. A list. :)
    Be £5 a line as well
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
    So Scotland is not in the UK? Come now, that constititional document is much more basic than what goes on in any one election.

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes for there, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
    Source? I’d be astonished if the SCAUP has its own terms and conditions of membership.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 79
    edited September 1
    PJH said:

    HYUFD said:

    PJH said:

    I wonder why Yoons in a far away country of which we know far too fecking much are telling an LD who actually lives in Scotland what he can and can't support? Weird.

    There is nothing weird about commenting on a candidate standing for election in direct contravention of the party's line
    That seems odd coming from a Tory. My local MP has generally stood in direct opposition to the party line on Europe, certainly in 2010 and 2017.
    Any Tory parliamentary candidates (including incumbent MPs) who were not willing to vote for Brexit were deselected before the 2019 general election
    Indeed. It wasn't a problem in his case!
    And thinking about it, if previous Tory leaderships had adopted the same ruthless approach to Europe policy as in 2019, would we still be in the EU... or would we now have a UKIP government?

    (Minor edit)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927
    MaxPB said:

    Charles said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    And @MaxPB fpt re LFT testing in Greece.

    Very very easy. You will get the address (google or recommendation from your hotel) of a friendly doctor's practice, you will rock up, they will wave the swab around in the general vicinity of your face and pronounce you fit to fly.

    €25 very badly spent but what can you do. I slightly bridled at the fact that were it positive you would NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLY INTO YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

    Ponder that, @contrarian -haters.

    Thanks, I was looking into the self administered ones from here which are £30 or so, they also feel like a rip off, especially given that you don't have to actually do them, just get a negative result. It's completely pointless now that everyone in the UK is eligible to be vaccinated. You probably won't agree but I'd put up a vaccine wall on flying in and out of the UK, anyone who isn't must arrange to be on quarantine flights that will go direct to the 10 day hotel prisons. This testing stuff is just so much hassle and makes weekends away a nightmare to figure out. There's no longer a life where my wife and I can just book a weekend in Rome going on Friday evening and arriving on Monday morning which is quite depressing.
    So you would trade off a substantial reduction in other people’s freedom so you can enjoy a weekend away?
    Those other people are free to get a vaccine. Only their stupidity is stopping them.
    Not in all cases

    But because you think they are stupid their freedom should be limited for your convenience?
  • Look out Raab! The Claudia has asked a question!

    Labour needs to reinstate her whip. She is sorely missed by the party, an intellectual powerhouse who was absolutely definitely not parachuted into Leicester East.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484

    Carnyx said:

    Patrick Harvie, 22 July:

    The UK Government is destroying public trust, as well as increasing the human cost in lives and health harm.......

    In the wake of the existing generational injustice made worse by Covid, vaccine passports would deepen discrimination against those who have not yet been vaccinated. It would deepen inequality at a time when the country needs collective effort. Worse still, the confusion allows the anti-vaxxers who marched in London to spread misinformation about the safety and purpose of the vaccine itself.


    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19462951.vaccine-passports-inequality-will-deepen-jag-proof-needed/

    Lets see what tune he sings when Scotland does it....

    They've agreed to differ with the SNP on a range of matters. Can't recall if this is one, mind.
    Maybe he'll see the light like Humza Yousaf?

    Humza Yousaf has talked down the prospect of vaccine passports being introduced in Scotland as a way of forcing younger people to receive covid jabs.

    The health secretary said he was "sceptical" of any plan which would mean Scots turned away at the doors of pubs or nightclubs if they could not prove they were fully vaccinated against coronavirus.


    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/humza-yousaf-sceptical-over-vaccine-24581330

    It will be funny if Scotland introduces vaccine passports after Nationalist politicians initially opposed them when England said they'd do it, and England ends up not doing it.

    To add to the hilarity, NHS England vaccine certificates have QR codes making such "passports" much easier than NHS Scotland which doesn't.
    Thicker than mince
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,484
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    @MattW FPT.
    Why are rabbits sentimentalised in Taiwan?

    They are simply a common pet, and an animal not eaten.
    My observation, which kicked off quite a discussion, was in response to someone getting grief for eating guinea pig in Peru.
    The point being that all cultures divide animals into pets, food, vermin and indifferent.
    Not always similarly, nor logically.

    Thanks. Is there a rabbit-eating history similar to how traditionally urban Chinese used to keep carp in the back garden for consumption? Compare England and the household pig fed on scraps.

    So a good comparison in some ways might actually be dogs in the UK?
    Horses probably more relevant

    The Brits sentimalise - the French eat them
    And the Swedes. I had cold sliced horse meat on my open sandwich for breakfast this morning.
    I take it your neigh joking?
    You gymkhana beat it.
    What do you have to pony up for that?
    At 22 kronor for 100 grammes, my wallet takes it at a canter.
    Can't we rein in this discussion?
    I was just getting the bit between my teeth.
    I'm sorry if colleagues are beginning to bridle at my remark.
    Surprised @ydoethur isn't around to snaffle the punning opportunity.
    Perhaps he is out to pasture?
    Certainly would not be out to stud
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,991
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    And @MaxPB fpt re LFT testing in Greece.

    Very very easy. You will get the address (google or recommendation from your hotel) of a friendly doctor's practice, you will rock up, they will wave the swab around in the general vicinity of your face and pronounce you fit to fly.

    €25 very badly spent but what can you do. I slightly bridled at the fact that were it positive you would NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLY INTO YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

    Ponder that, @contrarian -haters.

    You are not allowed to fly while having a communicatable disease
    Is the flu a communicable disease?
    In the sense of being notifiable to the public authorities rather than infectious
    So are you allowed to fly while having a communicable disease?
    See @Philip_Thompson at 14:01
    Yes I saw that. Can you post me the bit about not being allowed to fly while having a communicable disease.

    Does this mean that people have never flown or been allowed to fly while they have had the flu?
    Notifiable. Not flu.
    Thanks. Makes sense. Can you provide a link to the law pls.
    The power to make regulations is under s45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which was inserted by s129 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. There have been subsequent amendments in relation to Covid by the various Acts of that name which make it clear that it is covered.
    Thanks. Charles said that you are not allowed to fly if you have a "communicable disease". I was looking for the specific ordinance that states that. I found this which looks for all the world like it would provide the SoS with the powers to do so.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22

    On the government website it says "You must have proof of a negative COVID-19 test to travel to England from abroad." but I wondered what the context of it was.

    Because if the flu is a notifiable disease as per @Carnyx's link then we have never been in a position whereby a notifiable disease has prevented entry to this country before.
    45B Health protection regulations: international travel etc.
    (1) The appropriate Minister may by regulations make provision–
    (a) for preventing danger to public health from vessels, aircraft, trains or other conveyances arriving at any place,
    (b) for preventing the spread of infection or contamination by means of any vessel, aircraft, train or other conveyance leaving any place, and
    (c) for giving effect to any international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of infection or contamination.
    (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision–
    (a) for the detention of conveyances,
    (b) for the medical examination, detention, isolation or quarantine of persons,
    (c) for the inspection, analysis, retention, isolation, quarantine or destruction of things,
    (d) for the disinfection or decontamination of conveyances, persons or things or the application of other sanitary measures,
    (e) for prohibiting or regulating the arrival or departure of conveyances and the entry or exit of persons or things,
    (f) imposing duties on masters, pilots, train managers and other persons on board conveyances and on owners and managers of ports, airports and other points of entry, and
    (g) requiring persons to provide information or answer questions (including information or questions relating to their health).

    That is at least one power to put these sort of restrictions in. Its probably not the only one.
    Yes I saw that. Has he done any of them previously or indeed now? ie is there a regulation to this effect in place now? Has there been previously?
    There's hundreds of them. A sample
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1409
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1219
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 10) Regulations 2021/583
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/457
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wales) Regulations 2020/308
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020/129
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/452
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/252
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/670
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021/731
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021/766
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021/795
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2021/865
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/914
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2021/923
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 9) Regulations 2021/966
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/589
    Typically fascinating lawyer's post. A list. :)
    Be £5 a line as well
    I doubt it. £500, more like.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you stand for election under a party label you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

    We won't have a "manifesto". Nor does the federal party currently have a manifesto as the election was 2 years ago under a previous leader. Are Labour people now bound by the witterings of Corbyn?

    The Scottish government will propose a referendum, LibDem MSPs will vote against it, the government will win the vote. What would that have to with county councillors? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant - and again you show me a politician who has zero disagreement with the entire policy platform and I will point out that they are lying.

    It's one thing to vote against proposing a referendum. It's quite another to still oppose that referendum after the vote by the Scottish Parliament has been passed.
    I wonder if SLAB or SLID (The Tories won't) will pivot at that stage. Because once that point has been crossed it's less arguing against an indy ref, more arguing against devolved democracy itself.
    That is an red line SLab and SLD cannot afford to cross. That would shift them from being anti-sovereignty to anti-Scottish
    Hardly, only 35% of Scots want indyref2 before the end of 2023 as Sturgeon does.


    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-split-on-snp-mandate-for-referendum-with-independence-top-priority-for-just-one-in-11-3238015
    The Tank Commander is now an expert on how SLab and SLD voters would react to anti-Scottish behaviour.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you stand for election under a party label you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

    We won't have a "manifesto". Nor does the federal party currently have a manifesto as the election was 2 years ago under a previous leader. Are Labour people now bound by the witterings of Corbyn?

    The Scottish government will propose a referendum, LibDem MSPs will vote against it, the government will win the vote. What would that have to with county councillors? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant - and again you show me a politician who has zero disagreement with the entire policy platform and I will point out that they are lying.

    It's one thing to vote against proposing a referendum. It's quite another to still oppose that referendum after the vote by the Scottish Parliament has been passed.
    I wonder if SLAB or SLID (The Tories won't) will pivot at that stage. Because once that point has been crossed it's less arguing against an indy ref, more arguing against devolved democracy itself.
    That is an red line SLab and SLD cannot afford to cross. That would shift them from being anti-sovereignty to anti-Scottish
    Hardly, only 35% of Scots want indyref2 before the end of 2023 as Sturgeon does


    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-split-on-snp-mandate-for-referendum-with-independence-top-priority-for-just-one-in-11-3238015
    Laughable. We had an actual election this May. The results of that not only trump any opinion poll, but also does not contradict that poll. 35% not seeing an early referendum as a priority before 2023 is not the same as not supporting having one before 2026.
    2026 will be after the next UK general election, Starmer may even be UK PM by then in which case if he wants to grant one that would be his decision
    2026 is within the terms of this Scottish Parliament you prannock. What does the Westminster election have to do with an opinion poll in Scotland that you just posted?
  • HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes for there, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
    Source? I’d be astonished if the SCAUP has its own terms and conditions of membership.
    It doesn't. Shocking and distressing as it may be, our beloved HYUFD is a hypocrite.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes for there, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
    Source? I’d be astonished if the SCAUP has its own terms and conditions of membership.
    Even if they are different, that certainly doesn't let HYUFD himself off the hook.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Charles said:

    MattW said:

    dixiedean said:

    @MattW FPT.
    Why are rabbits sentimentalised in Taiwan?

    They are simply a common pet, and an animal not eaten.
    My observation, which kicked off quite a discussion, was in response to someone getting grief for eating guinea pig in Peru.
    The point being that all cultures divide animals into pets, food, vermin and indifferent.
    Not always similarly, nor logically.

    Thanks. Is there a rabbit-eating history similar to how traditionally urban Chinese used to keep carp in the back garden for consumption? Compare England and the household pig fed on scraps.

    So a good comparison in some ways might actually be dogs in the UK?
    Horses probably more relevant

    The Brits sentimalise - the French eat them
    And the Swedes. I had cold sliced horse meat on my open sandwich for breakfast this morning.
    I take it your neigh joking?
    You gymkhana beat it.
    What do you have to pony up for that?
    At 22 kronor for 100 grammes, my wallet takes it at a canter.
    Can't we rein in this discussion?
    I was just getting the bit between my teeth.
    I'm sorry if colleagues are beginning to bridle at my remark.
    Surprised @ydoethur isn't around to snaffle the punning opportunity.
    Perhaps he is out to pasture?
    Certainly would not be out to stud
    Down the knacker’s yard?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,991
    Just catching up. A quiz question:

    Which is higher?
    a) the number of new hospitals built under this government, or
    b) the number of new trade deals signed by this government?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Voters can do what they like. It is party members who get into hot water for voting against their party.

    Think of it as being comparable to adultery. Playing away, as it were.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
    This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

    However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

    Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    Link to a CNN report on the loons of Alabama who wont get vaxxed.

    "How much testing do you think would be enough to persuade you it was worth using the vaccine?"

    "About ten years."

    Some of them don't even believe Trump really has taken the vax even though he said he had. The Trumpsters are so far down the rabbit hole they don't even believe their own cult leader. Jeez.

    https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1432962006508785668

    I look forward to the CNN report on why American ethnic minority and black people are even more vaccine hesitant than whites

    and I look forward to you dismissing them as 'down the rabbit hole'
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,324
    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Carnyx said:

    The problem I had with buildings was distance when taking pics for my work - higher up was further away so buildings seemed to taper into the distance especially when looking up. There was some sort of solution for this but I forget what it was and that was back in the days of un-compact SLRs with 35mm film and removable lenses.

    The Old World solution was a camera in which you could tilt the plane of the film to match the building and offset the lens.

    There is probably a digital 'filter' to do that now...
    That's it, thanks!

    It's worth checking for that digital solution - the problem used to annoy me a lot.
    Tilt/shift lenses are still widely available (though rather expensive).
    Easy to adjust digitally, though.
    Best to save images in the camera's RAW format if you are going to work on them with Photoshop or Lightroom later
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479
    edited September 1

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes for there, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
    Source? I’d be astonished if the SCAUP has its own terms and conditions of membership.
    The terms are quite clear you cannot support another UK registered party for UK elections, for a vote for Labour or the LDs as much as SNP at UK elections is a vote against a UK Tory majority government.

    For Scottish elections however a vote for any Unionist party is a vote against an SNP majority or an SNP and Green government, hence the rules do not disallow votes for Scottish parties at Scotland only elections for Holyrood.

    The Scottish Conservatives run the Conservative campaign in Scotland from their office in Northumberland Street, Edinburgh and set the rules for Holyrood elections. CCHQ only has full remit over UK general elections and local elections in England (and in the latter the approved council candidates list is determined by local associations, CCHQ only determines the approved candidates list for UK parliamentary candidates)
  • HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    No, if the Unionists had lost aforementioned FPTP seats, they would have been compensated by extra list seats.
    Look up how the Scottish Holyrood elections work before commenting.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes for there, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
    Source? I’d be astonished if the SCAUP has its own terms and conditions of membership.
    The terms are quite clear you cannot support another UK registered party for UK elections, for a vote for Labour or the LD as much as SNP at UK elections is a vote against a UK Tory majority government.

    For Scottish elections however a vote for any Unionist party is a vote against an SNP and Green government, hence the rules do not disallow votes for Scottish parties at Scotland only elections for Holyrood.

    The Scottish Conservatives run the Conservative campaign in Scotland from their office in Northumberland Street, Edinburgh and set the rules for Holyrood elections, CCHQ only has full remit over UK general elections and elections in England
    MEMBERSHIP RULES are what you need to show. You've ignored that, carefully.

    And SCUP sets the rules for elections in Scotland? I am sure the Electoral Commission would be astounded.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
    This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

    However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

    Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
    I think it reasonable for a Unionist to advocate a further referendum, on the grounds that winning it would kill the issue for a long time, indeed should be part of the legislation.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,459
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    It wouldn't, No even if it won would win more narrowly than in 2014 most likely and the Nationalists would then start pushing for indyref3 the next day.

    If you give in once that a generation does not mean a generation what is to stop Nats believing you would give in to them again?
    Because the Scots would not be up for continually having votes on this. You need a caricatured and jaundiced view of them to think otherwise. These exercises are not trivial. They convulse a country and expend enormous energy. Same applied with our EU one. That's why I knew - KNEW - that for all the rational seeming argument for it Ref2 was a total pipedream. We were not going through that again anytime soon.

    Here with Sindy there is (just about) sufficient rationale and and appetite for holding another vote just a touch less than 10 years since the last one but that will be it for the foreseeable if it's another No.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,012
    Tension between Scotland's vaccine certification plan (for nightclubs, all large events with 10k+) and COP26. Attendees at COP26 are "strongly recommended" to be vaccinated but it's not mandatory.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1433076317369548807?s=20
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
    This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

    However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

    Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
    How many times do we have to do this?
    1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it
    2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout

    We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,038
    Sinovac Reaps $7.7 Billion from COVID-19 Vaccine, Investor Report Unveils
    https://www.pharmadj.com/en/cms/detail.htm
    Sinovac could be making over ¥50 billion ($7.7 billion) from its CoronaVac in the first half of this year, financial data from its investor Sino Biopharm suggested. This would make Sinovac the world’s most profitable COVID-19 vaccine developer.

    Sino Biopharm acquired a 15.03% stake in Sinovac in December 2020. In its interim report unveiled on Tuesday, the company posted profit of ¥7.5 billion ($1.16 billion) from associates and joint ventures, which include the vaccine maker....
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,459
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Alistair said:

    Just working my way through the implications of the Texas abortion bill.

    As far as I can tell a rapist would now be able to successfully sue anyone involved in his victim's abortion if she chose to get one. Unless there is a specific restriction on that I haven't read about.

    It's an absolute shocker. I wonder what the result of a female only referendum in Texas would be?
    A relatively slim majority against, from what I can see from the polling.
    Rather larger if you were to restrict that to the under 45s - those actually affected.
    It's so outrageous that I have to think it won't hold.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,562
    Nigelb said:

    Sinovac Reaps $7.7 Billion from COVID-19 Vaccine, Investor Report Unveils
    https://www.pharmadj.com/en/cms/detail.htm
    Sinovac could be making over ¥50 billion ($7.7 billion) from its CoronaVac in the first half of this year, financial data from its investor Sino Biopharm suggested. This would make Sinovac the world’s most profitable COVID-19 vaccine developer.

    Sino Biopharm acquired a 15.03% stake in Sinovac in December 2020. In its interim report unveiled on Tuesday, the company posted profit of ¥7.5 billion ($1.16 billion) from associates and joint ventures, which include the vaccine maker....

    In Q2, Moderna brought in $4.4bn of revenues, up from $67m a year before.
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
    This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

    However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

    Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
    How many times do we have to do this?
    1. Scottish voters are ready for the referendum having voted for parties to deliver it
    2. A comfortable majority of MSPs pledged to deliver it were elected in a record turnout

    We cannot have a "votes cast count, seats elected don't count" argument without also accepting that the Labour / LibDem / Green / SNP group won the UK election.
    You know as well as I do the Scots do not want an early indyref2 poll and at present the union has majority support

    That is why I agree with @kinabalu
  • eekeek Posts: 15,817
    edited September 1

    Just catching up. A quiz question:

    Which is higher?
    a) the number of new hospitals built under this government, or
    b) the number of new trade deals signed by this government?

    That probably depends on what your definition of a NEW hospital is?

    Remember that the one opened in Carlisle was really more an expanded cancer department rebranded as a cancer hospital.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479
    edited September 1

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    No, if the Unionists had lost aforementioned FPTP seats, they would have been compensated by extra list seats.
    Look up how the Scottish Holyrood elections work before commenting.
    The SNP would have won a majority if Aberdeenshire West, Dumbarton, Edinburgh Southern and Eastwood had gone SNP, the Unionist parties would not have won enough list seats to compensate
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes for there, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
    Source? I’d be astonished if the SCAUP has its own terms and conditions of membership.
    The terms are quite clear you cannot support another UK registered party for UK elections, for a vote for Labour or the LDs as much as SNP at UK elections is a vote against a UK Tory majority government.

    For Scottish elections however a vote for any Unionist party is a vote against an SNP majority or an SNP and Green government, hence the rules do not disallow votes for Scottish parties at Scotland only elections for Holyrood.

    The Scottish Conservatives run the Conservative campaign in Scotland from their office in Northumberland Street, Edinburgh and set the rules for Holyrood elections. CCHQ only has full remit over UK general elections and local elections in England (and in the latter the approved council candidates list is determined by local associations, CCHQ only determines the approved candidates list for UK parliamentary candidates)
    You are just making it up as you go along.

    Show us a paragraph in the conditions of membership that says it is OK to vote Labour or Lib Dem.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    If you stand for election under a party label you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters

    We won't have a "manifesto". Nor does the federal party currently have a manifesto as the election was 2 years ago under a previous leader. Are Labour people now bound by the witterings of Corbyn?

    The Scottish government will propose a referendum, LibDem MSPs will vote against it, the government will win the vote. What would that have to with county councillors? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant - and again you show me a politician who has zero disagreement with the entire policy platform and I will point out that they are lying.

    It's one thing to vote against proposing a referendum. It's quite another to still oppose that referendum after the vote by the Scottish Parliament has been passed.
    I wonder if SLAB or SLID (The Tories won't) will pivot at that stage. Because once that point has been crossed it's less arguing against an indy ref, more arguing against devolved democracy itself.
    That is an red line SLab and SLD cannot afford to cross. That would shift them from being anti-sovereignty to anti-Scottish
    Hardly, only 35% of Scots want indyref2 before the end of 2023 as Sturgeon does


    https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scots-split-on-snp-mandate-for-referendum-with-independence-top-priority-for-just-one-in-11-3238015
    Laughable. We had an actual election this May. The results of that not only trump any opinion poll, but also does not contradict that poll. 35% not seeing an early referendum as a priority before 2023 is not the same as not supporting having one before 2026.
    2026 will be after the next UK general election, Starmer may even be UK PM by then in which case if he wants to grant one that would be his decision
    2026 is within the terms of this Scottish Parliament you prannock. What does the Westminster election have to do with an opinion poll in Scotland that you just posted?
    Everything as union matters are reserved to the UK government under the Scotland Act 1998, Holyrood has power over Scottish domestic policy only
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    Nigelb said:

    Sinovac Reaps $7.7 Billion from COVID-19 Vaccine, Investor Report Unveils
    https://www.pharmadj.com/en/cms/detail.htm
    Sinovac could be making over ¥50 billion ($7.7 billion) from its CoronaVac in the first half of this year, financial data from its investor Sino Biopharm suggested. This would make Sinovac the world’s most profitable COVID-19 vaccine developer.

    Sino Biopharm acquired a 15.03% stake in Sinovac in December 2020. In its interim report unveiled on Tuesday, the company posted profit of ¥7.5 billion ($1.16 billion) from associates and joint ventures, which include the vaccine maker....

    Now if I was a conspiracy theorist...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    It wouldn't, No even if it won would win more narrowly than in 2014 most likely and the Nationalists would then start pushing for indyref3 the next day.

    If you give in once that a generation does not mean a generation what is to stop Nats believing you would give in to them again?
    Because the Scots would not be up for continually having votes on this. You need a caricatured and jaundiced view of them to think otherwise. These exercises are not trivial. They convulse a country and expend enormous energy. Same applied with our EU one. That's why I knew - KNEW - that for all the rational seeming argument for it Ref2 was a total pipedream. We were not going through that again anytime soon.

    Here with Sindy there is (just about) sufficient rationale and and appetite for holding another vote just a touch less than 10 years since the last one but that will be it for the foreseeable if it's another No.
    It won't, the Nationalists are like a crocodile, once you feed it once it will not appease it, it will be back for more.

    A generation is a generation, the UK government must not weakly appease the Nats and give an indyref2 before a genuine generation is up since 2014 otherwise they will be demanding indyref3 in less than a generation too
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    DavidL said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Charles said:

    TOPPING said:

    And @MaxPB fpt re LFT testing in Greece.

    Very very easy. You will get the address (google or recommendation from your hotel) of a friendly doctor's practice, you will rock up, they will wave the swab around in the general vicinity of your face and pronounce you fit to fly.

    €25 very badly spent but what can you do. I slightly bridled at the fact that were it positive you would NOT BE ALLOWED TO FLY INTO YOUR OWN COUNTRY.

    Ponder that, @contrarian -haters.

    You are not allowed to fly while having a communicatable disease
    Is the flu a communicable disease?
    In the sense of being notifiable to the public authorities rather than infectious
    So are you allowed to fly while having a communicable disease?
    See @Philip_Thompson at 14:01
    Yes I saw that. Can you post me the bit about not being allowed to fly while having a communicable disease.

    Does this mean that people have never flown or been allowed to fly while they have had the flu?
    Notifiable. Not flu.
    Thanks. Makes sense. Can you provide a link to the law pls.
    The power to make regulations is under s45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which was inserted by s129 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. There have been subsequent amendments in relation to Covid by the various Acts of that name which make it clear that it is covered.
    Thanks. Charles said that you are not allowed to fly if you have a "communicable disease". I was looking for the specific ordinance that states that. I found this which looks for all the world like it would provide the SoS with the powers to do so.

    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22

    On the government website it says "You must have proof of a negative COVID-19 test to travel to England from abroad." but I wondered what the context of it was.

    Because if the flu is a notifiable disease as per @Carnyx's link then we have never been in a position whereby a notifiable disease has prevented entry to this country before.
    45B Health protection regulations: international travel etc.
    (1) The appropriate Minister may by regulations make provision–
    (a) for preventing danger to public health from vessels, aircraft, trains or other conveyances arriving at any place,
    (b) for preventing the spread of infection or contamination by means of any vessel, aircraft, train or other conveyance leaving any place, and
    (c) for giving effect to any international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of infection or contamination.
    (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision–
    (a) for the detention of conveyances,
    (b) for the medical examination, detention, isolation or quarantine of persons,
    (c) for the inspection, analysis, retention, isolation, quarantine or destruction of things,
    (d) for the disinfection or decontamination of conveyances, persons or things or the application of other sanitary measures,
    (e) for prohibiting or regulating the arrival or departure of conveyances and the entry or exit of persons or things,
    (f) imposing duties on masters, pilots, train managers and other persons on board conveyances and on owners and managers of ports, airports and other points of entry, and
    (g) requiring persons to provide information or answer questions (including information or questions relating to their health).

    That is at least one power to put these sort of restrictions in. Its probably not the only one.
    Yes I saw that. Has he done any of them previously or indeed now? ie is there a regulation to this effect in place now? Has there been previously?
    There's hundreds of them. A sample
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions and Functions of Local Authorities) (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1409
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 4) (Wales) Regulations 2020/1219
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 10) Regulations 2021/583
    Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (No. 5) (Wales) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/457
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Wales) Regulations 2020/308
    Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020/129
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/452
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Information for Passengers) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/252
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021/670
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2021/731
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021/766
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2021/795
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 6) Regulations 2021/865
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 7) Regulations 2021/914
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 8) Regulations 2021/923
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) (No. 9) Regulations 2021/966
    Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel and Operator Liability) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021/589
    Typically fascinating lawyer's post. A list. :)
    Be £5 a line as well
    Oh. Lines of text. :)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    eek said:

    Just catching up. A quiz question:

    Which is higher?
    a) the number of new hospitals built under this government, or
    b) the number of new trade deals signed by this government?

    That probably depends on what your definition of a NEW hospital is?

    Remember that the one opened in Carlisle was really more an expanded cancer department rebranded as a cancer hospital.
    Zero new hospitals, zero new trade deals?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 5,287
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes for there, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
    Source? I’d be astonished if the SCAUP has its own terms and conditions of membership.
    The terms are quite clear you cannot support another UK registered party for UK elections, for a vote for Labour or the LDs as much as SNP at UK elections is a vote against a UK Tory majority government.

    For Scottish elections however a vote for any Unionist party is a vote against an SNP majority or an SNP and Green government, hence the rules do not disallow votes for Scottish parties at Scotland only elections for Holyrood.

    The Scottish Conservatives run the Conservative campaign in Scotland from their office in Northumberland Street, Edinburgh and set the rules for Holyrood elections. CCHQ only has full remit over UK general elections and local elections in England (and in the latter the approved council candidates list is determined by local associations, CCHQ only determines the approved candidates list for UK parliamentary candidates)
    Now The Tank Commander is in favour of Scottish self-governance. Odd chap.
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,475

    Look out Raab! The Claudia has asked a question!

    Labour needs to reinstate her whip. She is sorely missed by the party, an intellectual powerhouse who was absolutely definitely not parachuted into Leicester East.

    Still obsessed by labour and the Corbyn project.

    Parachuting, of course, never went on in Blairs day, oh no, definitely not.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    Patrick Harvie, 22 July:

    The UK Government is destroying public trust, as well as increasing the human cost in lives and health harm.......

    In the wake of the existing generational injustice made worse by Covid, vaccine passports would deepen discrimination against those who have not yet been vaccinated. It would deepen inequality at a time when the country needs collective effort. Worse still, the confusion allows the anti-vaxxers who marched in London to spread misinformation about the safety and purpose of the vaccine itself.


    https://www.thenational.scot/news/19462951.vaccine-passports-inequality-will-deepen-jag-proof-needed/

    Lets see what tune he sings when Scotland does it....

    Does Harvie have no idea how hard it is to get to see your dentist during lockdown? They cancelled on me again today for the second time. He makes not grinding your teeth almost impossible.

    Perhaps the Harvie could become a unit of stupidity. Bloody daft but not the full Harvie, that sort of thing.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,479

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    Well, look at Ms Baillie - IIRC she's very keen on nukes at Faslane yet that is against Slab policy. And as my Scottish colleagues and I have pointed out, Slab can be a bit apt to urge voting for Tories. I seem to remember that HYUFD supports voting for Labour and LD in Scotland to keep the SNP out, which again is hardly party policy.
    Scottish Labour has reversed its opposition to nuclear weapons, certainly at UK level
    https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2019/11/26/scottish-labour-ditches-opposition-to-trident-renewal-for-uk-election/

    If I am elected as a Tory I will vote for and implement the Tory manifesto, tactical voting as the best means to preserve the Union, which is Tory policy does not change that
    Either tactical voting yourself or advocating voters vote against your party is grounds to get you expelled from the party.
    Apart from in Scotland, even the Scottish Conservative leader did not oppose tactical voting against the SNP given the main divide there is Unionist v Nationalist
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/04/08/scottish-tory-leader-urges-voters-back-labour-libdems-seats/
    Well, he needs ot be expelled promptly [edit] from the SCUP. He'd give the red card to anyone running onto the pitch in the wrong shirt.
    You can't expel the elected leader and plenty of Scottish Tories felt the same way, Labour only held Dumbarton and Edinburgh Southern and the LDs only held Edinburgh Western and North East Fife because of tactical votes from Scottish Tories to keep out the SNP.

    The SNP failed to get a majority due to Unionist tactical voting
    Haw, pal, I've got news for you. You and Mr Ross'd better get your resignation in ...

    https://public.conservatives.com/static/documents/General_Terms_and_Conditions_of_Membership_2020.pdf

    "General Terms and Conditions of Membership of the Conservative Party

    [...]

    7. To be a member or supporter of no other UK-registered political party nor a supporter of any
    candidate of such a party.

    [...]
    Approved by the Board of the Conservative Party
    October 2020"
    For UK elections yes, this was a Scotland only election for Scotland only parties.

    Scottish Conservatives set their own rules for Holyrood elections and Ross is the Scottish Conservative leader at Holyrood elections who decides what goes for there, Boris only leads the UK Conservative Party and the Conservative Party in England
    Source? I’d be astonished if the SCAUP has its own terms and conditions of membership.
    The terms are quite clear you cannot support another UK registered party for UK elections, for a vote for Labour or the LDs as much as SNP at UK elections is a vote against a UK Tory majority government.

    For Scottish elections however a vote for any Unionist party is a vote against an SNP majority or an SNP and Green government, hence the rules do not disallow votes for Scottish parties at Scotland only elections for Holyrood.

    The Scottish Conservatives run the Conservative campaign in Scotland from their office in Northumberland Street, Edinburgh and set the rules for Holyrood elections. CCHQ only has full remit over UK general elections and local elections in England (and in the latter the approved council candidates list is determined by local associations, CCHQ only determines the approved candidates list for UK parliamentary candidates)
    You are just making it up as you go along.

    Show us a paragraph in the conditions of membership that says it is OK to vote Labour or Lib Dem.
    There is nothing in the terms of membership saying a vote against the SNP at Holyrood elections is disallowed.

    Slab and the SLDs are Scottish only parties standing for Scotland only elections at Holyrood, they only become part of the UK parties at UK general elections when they stand for Westminster
  • HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    It wouldn't, No even if it won would win more narrowly than in 2014 most likely and the Nationalists would then start pushing for indyref3 the next day.

    If you give in once that a generation does not mean a generation what is to stop Nats believing you would give in to them again?
    Because the Scots would not be up for continually having votes on this. You need a caricatured and jaundiced view of them to think otherwise. These exercises are not trivial. They convulse a country and expend enormous energy. Same applied with our EU one. That's why I knew - KNEW - that for all the rational seeming argument for it Ref2 was a total pipedream. We were not going through that again anytime soon.

    Here with Sindy there is (just about) sufficient rationale and and appetite for holding another vote just a touch less than 10 years since the last one but that will be it for the foreseeable if it's another No.
    It won't, the Nationalists are like a crocodile, once you feed it once it will not appease it, it will be back for more.

    A generation is a generation, the UK government must not weakly appease the Nats and give an indyref2 before a genuine generation is up since 2014 otherwise they will be demanding indyref3 in less than a generation too
    Your basic problem with this "argument" is that the 2014 referendum was not "once in a generation" - and frankly you either know this and are happy to lie about it are don't know this and are clueless about politics in Scotland.

    If you want to make something once in a generation you legislate it as such. It was not, so it is not. An off-the-cuff campaigning comment by the first minister is not the same as the law.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818

    Tension between Scotland's vaccine certification plan (for nightclubs, all large events with 10k+) and COP26. Attendees at COP26 are "strongly recommended" to be vaccinated but it's not mandatory.

    https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1433076317369548807?s=20

    Will the way Scottish labour votes on this reveal their hand on which way Starmer will jump in England?

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    Look out Raab! The Claudia has asked a question!

    Labour needs to reinstate her whip. She is sorely missed by the party, an intellectual powerhouse who was absolutely definitely not parachuted into Leicester East.

    I am in awe of your indefatigability and persistence. You are seriously watching this?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,308
    edited September 1
    Sam Coates of Sky saying Dominic Raab should be pleased with his performance with lots of information and factual points
  • eek said:

    Just catching up. A quiz question:

    Which is higher?
    a) the number of new hospitals built under this government, or
    b) the number of new trade deals signed by this government?

    That probably depends on what your definition of a NEW hospital is?

    Remember that the one opened in Carlisle was really more an expanded cancer department rebranded as a cancer hospital.
    Zero new hospitals, zero new trade deals?
    Zero new hospitals certainly. The one in Carlisle was referred to (correctly) by the local Tory MP as the "Northern Centre for Cancer Care at the Cumberland Infirmary". Not as a new hospital.

    Remember though. Tories tell obvious lies about new hospitals because out there are Tory voters who are happy to believe the lies. That is what your politics has been reduced to - people living in happy ignorance happy to be lied to because it annoys people like me.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372
    theProle said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Alistair said:

    Just working my way through the implications of the Texas abortion bill.

    As far as I can tell a rapist would now be able to successfully sue anyone involved in his victim's abortion if she chose to get one. Unless there is a specific restriction on that I haven't read about.

    The polling has suggested Texans back it though 48% to 42% with 68% of Republicans in favour (and Republicans hold the governor's mansion and control the Texas state legislature).
    https://www.texastribune.org/2019/06/19/near-majority-texans-favor-outlawing-abortion-after-six-weeks-ut-tt/

    If she got an abortion in the first 6 weeks of pregnancy it would still be legal
    It is an abysmal law which invites frivolous prosecutions which could bankrupt individuals or organisations, since it allows any private individual to bring a case, and explicitly prevents any defendant from recovering their legal costs.
    Isn't it also the inevitable result of conducting activities which should have been matters of legislation by "lawfare" and judicial activism instead.
    It's not a pretty piece of legislation (although one has to admire the ingenuity of whoever came up with it as a way of sidestepping the current legal situation), but it's also hardly surprising we've ended up here, when all other roads are blocked.
    It is not a pretty piece of legislation, but neither is ours. Genuinely and equally balancing the claims and interests of mothers and the unborn when they conflict, IMHO, not been achieved anywhere. UK legislation and practice comes nowhere close. Those who live in glass houses.....

  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited September 1

    Look out Raab! The Claudia has asked a question!

    Wonderful entertainment.

    'Afghanistan has been destabilised by 40 years of Western intervention."

    USSR? What's that?

    Jezza needs to take her on a Tardis holiday through COMECON.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    DavidL said:

    What makes them think that he has done anything in the last 4 months?

    I said six month ago (ish) that Liz Truss was doing more for Britain and for foreign affairs in her role than the actual Foreign Secretary.

    Nothing has changed that opinion.
    Her department described as "Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V" by Whitehall mandarins for the copy and paste continuation deals being touted as new.
    Ignoring the last four words of your post for a minute, isn't that literally her job for the time being? And wasn't part of the argument against Brexit that we wouldn't be able to secure equally attractive terms on our own merits, without the EU's greater buying/negotiating power? In which case she is doing a smashing job in rolling them forwards.
    Sure! We needed to roll over the trade deals we left when we exited the EU. Nobody is saying that she shouldn't be doing this.

    What I think they are referring to is her claim that these are new deals. Whilst they are a new bilateral agreement they are not new trading arrangements. And yet the claim is made repeatedly that they are.
    You mentioned yesterday that you hoped to be selected for the lib dems and I did ask if you would campaign for the union

    I would be interested in your reply
    I don't understand the question. I am a member of a federalist party. I campaigned for them against the SNP government this year. We want to sustain the union by replacing the failed current union with a new written federal UK constitution that both encompasses national parliaments and as much local devolution (to Mayors for example) as people want.

    Will I campaign to preserve the status quo? No. Do I want scottish independence? No. But we WILL end up independent unless the union is made fit for the future. Westminster choosing to expel NI from the free trade zone and telling Scotland their votes count for nothing imperils the whole shebang.
    Seems a complex way of saying you agree with lib dem policy in support of the Union and you will campaign against independence
    Its a simple way to point out that "the union" as you define it - the current constitutional settlement - is not something we support. So no, I will not be campaigning to preserve this union, but for the creation of a new one.
    So will you refuse indyref2
    No! It is the expressed will of the Scottish people! A record turnout in a Holyrood election and a record number of pro-independence MSPs elected in a clear majority.

    To deny indyref2 is to deny democracy - and accelerate Scotland voting to leave.
    Scottish LD policy is to oppose indyref2, if you are now a LD candidate you are obliged to support LD policy

    https://prod.news.stv.tv/politics/scottish-lib-dems-will-oppose-holding-indyref2-at-any-point?top
    Don't be silly. My party is wrong on this subject. And we have a healthy debate on policy issues every year at conference.

    Its hardly like every candidate and elected representative at every level of every party
    wholeheartedly agrees with every policy that party has.
    If you stand on a party ticket you should support that party's manifesto otherwise you are confusing voters
    Do you agree with every aspect of the Conservative manifesto ?

    He can hardly join the SNP being a unionist and all that.
    I thought Rochdale favoured Sindy now?
    I favour holding the referendum that is the clearly expressed will of the Scottish people. I do not favour Scotland gaining independence. It will happen though unless we face into the wreck of this union and try to fix it.
    Ah ok. Yes the vote needs to happen. If it doesn't we'll see a (Westminster) 'PARLIAMENT vs the PEOPLE' atmosphere develop and we know how that ends. This is why - oddly - I think a vote now rather than later is better for Unionists than for Nats. They'd be favourites and another No to Sindy would take it off the table.
    I concur. The Tank Commander and his neo-Unionist fellow travellers are shooting themselves in the feet.
    This particular Unionist has no issue with Indyref2 and I agree with @kinabalu

    However, the first problem the SNPs has is calling indyref2 before the majority of Scots are ready for it , and secondly it would be very brave without a majority in favour of independence

    Additionally I really cannot understand Nicola agreeing a deal with the Greens as it was not necessary
    Just maybe she was nervous about one or two of her MSPs heading off to Alba leaving her short of a majority and subject to blackmail by he who should not be named.
  • DavidL said:

    Look out Raab! The Claudia has asked a question!

    Labour needs to reinstate her whip. She is sorely missed by the party, an intellectual powerhouse who was absolutely definitely not parachuted into Leicester East.

    I am in awe of your indefatigability and persistence. You are seriously watching this?
    It was on in the background whilst I wrote a lengthy reply to one client's sanity-challenged marketing team. The soporific Raab drone helped calm my own tone.
This discussion has been closed.