the central belt really is not representative of Scotland and both geographically the two countries are quite different.
Calling Scotland a region?
We will be able to invest in renewables to a much greater extent without having the prohibitive costs of joining these renewables to the national grid
Sorry but it's tripe, you would have to connect to a grid for security of supply for general use, industries can and do operate off grid. Connecting renewables to either gas or electricity grids anywhere near population is not prohibitive. Out in the sticks then scale matters and issues can arise such as on Orkney
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2019/03/10/Orkney-Energy-Islands-Penalised-Too-Clean-Too-Soon
But if you aren't proposing to connect to a grid who are you supplying?
I don’t think paying tax somewhere is any indication of how well someone does or doesn’t know a region.
It's a figure of speech but I do think you have to have rented or bought accommodation, had a job or spent time trying to find a job, and joined some sort of local groups to say you know a place.
I'm not even sure if going to university in a town counts as knowing it since it's easy to get caught up in the university bubble. It probably depends on how much time you spend interacting with people who don't go to university.
I lived in quite a few different countries and different places in the UK and often I've found after a year or so my initial reactions to a place can turn out to be completely wrong.
But qualifying how much difference there is between countries and regions through anecdotes is pretty much impossible. The only true test is who they vote for. I think for many years Scotland and the North of England were broadly similar but you only have to look at the last few election results to see that is definitely no longer the case.
and in the EU we get a say. In the UK we do not. an EU directive that went against the interests of the scottish people we could veto and / or could argue against and that argument would be heard. If Westminster passes a law that is against the interests of the Scottish people that is it. We have no say.
As I understand it the veto only applies to treaty negotiations (happy to be corrected). The EU parliament only discusses legislation brought forward by the EU Commission. Scotland has proportionately more MPs at Westminster than it would have in the EU parliament (Ireland for example has 13 out of 705). Scotland at Westminster 59 out of 650.
You have plenty of say and indeed Scots (including those representing Scottish constituencies) have occupied the great offices of state including PM.
Scotland has proportionately more MPs at Westminster than it would have in the EU parliament (Ireland for example has 13 out of 705). Scotland at Westminster 59 out of 650.
The crucial difference is that the EU Parliament does not use the FPTP system so no one group or country is going to able to push through it's agenda unless it can persuade other groups to support it.
Ireland might only have 13 MEPs, and if it is those 13 MEPs against the other 692 then they would quite rightly lose the vote. However, it will likely be that other countries and groups within the Parliament support them or they can be persuaded by horse trading.
Even if Scotland sends 59 SNP MPs to Westminster it will make absolutely no difference because of FPTP. The UK is at it's core undemocratic.
You have plenty of say and indeed Scots (including those representing Scottish constituencies) have occupied the great offices of state including PM.
My question to that would be, so what? It's not a game. We don't celebrate because someone close to our geographic location does well. The only important thing is are your interests represented. Scotland's interests will never be represented in Westminster. They weren't even represented on the few occasions Scotland got the government we voted for.
the central belt really is not representative of Scotland and both geographically the two countries are quite different.
You could look to the North West of England as a comparative, population numbers similar, M62 Manchester/Liverpool for the central belt and then a increasingly dispersed population as you head north. But it's different, the geography makes the area outside the central belt significantly different, then the islands are a step beyond that. You don't get the same isolation in England except in a few special places.
Calling Scotland a region?
Don't feed the troll
Ireland might only have 13 MEPs, and if it is those 13 MEPs against the other 692 then they would quite rightly lose the vote. However, it will likely be that other countries and groups within the Parliament support them or they can be persuaded by horse trading.
How much legislation did those MEPs introduce to the EU Parliament
@Edukator:
I am firmly against the way it was executed, i.e., unconstitutional illegal referendum. I have also seen and know of the damage that the separatist movement has done in Catalunya. I want Spain's policies to be fixed, so that distribution of money is better managed (btw this is already happening). Not to break up Spain. If independence is what they want, do it by the book, however long that takes. I will support their choice, even if I don't think its the right one, and same with Scotland.
Madrid has been taking the piss out of every region that is not the Castillas, Andalucia or North of Spain (yes the Pais Vasco actually get a pretty sweet deal in the redistribution of money). Airports, High speed rails and highways in places where they would never work and it would be shut down or unused.
I personally don't see many parallels between Scotland and Catalunya other than the end result. There are more parallels between Brexit and the Cataluña issue, such as xenophobia, manipulation, populism, false propaganda...
The only important thing is are your interests represented.
Was Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath not represented? Were those people in Edinburgh South East let down and without a voice in Westminster?
How much legislation did those MEPs introduce to the EU Parliament
I don't know. How many pieces of legislation introduced by the SNP in Westminster have become law?
Was Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath not represented? Were those people in Edinburgh South East let down and without a voice in Westminster?
Yes, because the FPTP system combined with the whip system means the interests of individual constituencies fall by the wayside in the pursuit of the 800,000 or so swing voters who decide each election.
See Starmer's U-turn on Freedom of Movement for a recent example.
See Starmer’s U-turn on Freedom of Movement for a recent example
Which is logical as there now isn't a reciprocal agreement with the EU, the wider issues around this are set out in his quotes here https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/10/keir-starmer-accepts-end-of-eu-free-movement-in-brexit-reversal
I accept there is difference in migration around the UK, the net figures are small in a UK context https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/scotlands-facts/scotlands-net-migration
I also can understand the concern over depopulation, aging population, skills shortages etc which obviously led to the policy on free tuition for EU nationals at Scottish universities. The SNP regional visa may have been a good idea and could be a lot more attractive to EU nationals now free movement has ended for E&W.
The reasons he gave are bullshit. Same as the reasons he gave for 3 line whipping to vote for the deal were bullshit.
His actual reason for doing both is that in order to win the election he has to win some key seats and in those seats they are not going to vote for a party that is going to bring back FoM.
It's as simple as that and it's a perfect illustration of the UK being fundamentally undemocratic where the desires of a tiny percentage of swing voters dictate both the government and opposition policy.
Same as the reasons he gave for 3 line whipping to vote for the deal were bullshit.
No deal would have been better? It was the perfect trap, he had only crap options and chose not to virtue signal
How much legislation did those MEPs introduce to the EU Parliament
**** legislation. They worked their arses off from the day after the referendum while you lot were still masturbating over the result. And look...it did nothing. The EU sold them down the river.
No deal would have been better?
Presenting it as voting for the deal means voting against no deal was also a lie:
https://twitter.com/lukecooper100/status/1343517157318078465
And yet the lie has been repeated so often by the UK press that it has become the truth.
And yet the lie has been repeated so often by the UK press that it has become the truth.
As soon as the vote was set up the trap was set. The procedural point that it wasn't required is irrelevant politically.
But you carry on with blaming Starmer for making the best of a crap position
If independence is what they want, do it by the book,
I think they would if there was a book that allowed it.
There are more parallels between Brexit and the Cataluña issue, such as xenophobia, manipulation, populism, false propaganda
The EU has never carried out armed repression of Britain, has never tried to overwhelm Brits with a mass influx of people from Europe, has never creamed off pretty much all the money Britain makes... I think you're forgetting the history of the Cataluna issue which provides a base for unrest far more solid than resentment of Polish plumbers or bent bananas. Unless you take the logic behind Brexit back to "we won the war but lost the peace" which I did hear more than once, along with references to Dunkirk spirit.
In Scotland I don't see the justification for "xenophobia", immigration isn't an issue and some of teh people on this thread admit they have very English accents which aren't a problem. "Manipulation" of whom by whom, any manipulation I see is from Westminster in that manipulation is based on lies and Westminster pretty much has the monopoly of those. "Populism" or playing to peoples worst instincts - well sturgeon pointed out when the Brexiters were doing it but I can't say I can accuse her of being guilty of it. If populism is having policies dear to the hearts of Scots in terms of social and economic policy then she's populist, but that isn't the real definition of populist as I understand it. If you think people are using "false propaganda" you really need to cite a few examples. In the case of Brexit the EU had pages and pages of Boris, Vote Leave and Farrage lies fact checked, do that for the SNP and I'll take the accusation seriously.
You seem to have blood that boils easily Baboonz. 😉
The EU has never carried out armed repression of Britain, has never tried to overwhelm Brits with a mass influx of people from Europe, has never creamed off pretty much all the money Britain makes…
My point is, Catalunya aren't the only ones having to deal with this, C.Valenciana also has had to deal with this and on the economic aspect Islas Baleares. Is the solution then to break up the country? The sad thing is that the central government didn't even cream themselves with that money, they squandered it away, and created Madrid in its present form which always feels like an artificial plastic capital city.
@Edukator read this again, the SNP may have had some parallels with Catalunya, but they extent the latter have gone goes far beyond what the SNP have even remotely tried. Which is why I said Brexit has more parallels to Catalunya than iScotland.
I personally don’t see many parallels between Scotland and Catalunya other than the end result. There are more parallels between Brexit and the Cataluña issue, such as xenophobia, manipulation, populism, false propaganda…
You seem to have blood that boils easily Baboonz. 😉
This is probably one of the topics that most angers me. I grew up in Castellon, so I've witness all the nonsense, and the reality is that Catalans are now poorer as a result of the separatists.
some of teh people on this thread admit they have very English accents which aren’t a problem.
Some of us in Scotland actually are English
As soon as the vote was set up the trap was set. The procedural point that it wasn’t required is irrelevant politically.
But you carry on with blaming Starmer for making the best of a crap position
You seem to be making my argument for me.
It was never a question of 'a vote against the deal is a vote for no deal.' Voting for the deal was a purely political gesture.
Not pursuing FoM was also a purely political gesture. He said that the EU would have no interest in renegotiating. They not only have an interest in renegotiating, it's required.
These were both purely political gestures and they were designed to appeal to a handful of swing voters in key seats because in the UK you don't get elected by representing the interests of the majority of the country, you get elected by appealing to a few swing voters.
Scotland has become a political irrelevancy for the English parties because none of the key swing voters live there. Scotland's interests will never be represented.
Interesting view from someone close by.
**** legislation. They worked their arses off from the day after the referendum while you lot were still masturbating over the result. And look…it did nothing. The EU sold them down the river.
FFS get a grip.
The whole Brexit saga showed the unity across the EU for all it's countries (or any size), whereas in the Union NI and Scotland were basically told to do one and accept what Westminster decided.
Scotland has proportionately more MPs at Westminster than it would have in the EU parliament (Ireland for example has 13 out of 705). Scotland at Westminster 59 out of 650
Just a point on this. We have 18 MPs in N.Ireland but 7 of those don't take their seats as they don't recognise Westminster. So N.Ireland is actually represented by 11 MPs out of 650
FFS get a grip.
Thank you for furthering my point.
Interesting view from someone close by.
Arguably reinforces the "boycott" any non Section 30 independence referendum that the SNP set up. It destroys the claim for legitimacy if turn out is 50% or less.
Although the SNP have to survive a few bumps in the road before May's election
Sorry but it’s tripe, you would have to connect to a grid for security of supply for general use, industries can and do operate off grid. Connecting renewables to either gas or electricity grids anywhere near population is not prohibitive. Out in the sticks then scale matters and issues can arise such as on Orkney
You just backed up TJs point completely. Present grid connection charges are based on distance from SW England, providers further away pay more for connection charges regardless of proximity to population on their own sub-grid whilst providers closer to the SE can actually be paid to generate. Scotland has been asking for reform on this for years with nothing to show for it. That was the primary driver for Longannet closing (since they were getting hammered on emissions and lost their contract) which had the unfortunate side effect of Scotland being left without a black start provision.
You just backed up TJs point completely. Present grid connection charges are based on distance from SW England, providers further away pay more for connection charges regardless of proximity to population on their own sub-grid whilst providers closer to the SE can actually be paid to generate. Scotland has been asking for reform on this for years with nothing to show for it. That was the primary driver for Longannet closing (since they were getting hammered on emissions and lost their contract) which had the unfortunate side effect of Scotland being left without a black start provision.
OK my power project wasn't impacted by this and the charges were not a material issue. I can understand that as portrayed the current system may be frustrating but I don't see in the short term how you are going to change the paradigm. Creating a separate national grid will have significant costs, any hope of exporting will hit the same issue as you have now. Unless you are planning exporting liquidified hydrogen in ships what are you going to use the surplus of renewables for? Any industrial investment will need a lot more certainty on border (and therefore tariff and country of origin issues) and currency issues than can be given for a long time
big_n_daft
Arguably reinforces the “boycott” any non Section 30 independence referendum that the SNP set up. It destroys the claim for legitimacy if turn out is 50% or less.
You say that as if it is fact. It originated in the BritNat bilge factory.
Non participation in a democratic process is generally treated as acceptance of whatever result occurs.
The current UK govt obviously operates on that principle, otherwise, why is Brexit ok at 37%?
You say that as if it is fact. It originated in the BritNat bilge factory.
It's a viewpoint, one with it's own issues as you point out. Walkouts can be counterproductive as the labour left found out at some recent NEC elections.
It's a democracy so voting is a moral obligation regardless of the issue/ quality of the candidates. However in this case you are forced to share in a process that's advisory that then leads to another vote. So why not just wait to the one that matters?
There is a natural advantage to whoever calls for an advisory referendum, mobilisation of the "not yes" vote will be harder and the yes voters will be whipping up the "once again in a lifetime" vote.
So it's arguably predicable that turnout will be lower than for a section 30 and more likely to get a pro iS result.
But that's politics and the SNP are going to go for it, hopefully a new generation of politicians will emerge who will be able to generate a coherent challenge
And Facebook (and Twitter or even spoof image (ninja edit)) does really create a sump for all the idiots to sink into, although sharing stuff like that serves a purpose for you.
That Twitter pic appears to be for an account that doesn’t exist
Thank you squirrelking
Closure of Longannet was at least partly a political decision to ensure scotland did not have blackstart ability IMO
the SNPs plan was to move faster on renewables to 100% of capacity and to build two new gas stations to provide blackstart and excess capacity for that winter high pressure event. Because of the high access charges and the inability of the scottish government to raise money this never happened. Renewables are just about there.
power generation is one area where independence would greatly benefit Scotland ( even tho IIRC Squirreellking and I do not agree on the direction)
OK my power project wasn’t impacted by this and the charges were not a material issue. I can understand that as portrayed the current system may be frustrating but I don’t see in the short term how you are going to change the paradigm.
Quite easily, access charges can be changed. You could charge access based on carbon emissions for example or based on some other criteria. Yes, distance comes into it in real terms but there are technical solutions that could be exploited (more macro generation in remote areas for example) to mitigate.
Creating a separate national grid will have significant costs, any hope of exporting will hit the same issue as you have now.
Not sure why you think that, Scotland already has its own grid which imports or exports to adjacent grids through links either on the super grid or the likes of the HVDC cable from Hunterston to Anglesey. You think the grid is a single entity but it's actually made up of smaller grids, for very good technical reasons.
Unless you are planning exporting liquidified hydrogen in ships what are you going to use the surplus of renewables for? Any industrial investment will need a lot more certainty on border (and therefore tariff and country of origin issues) and currency issues than can be given for a long time
We can export to the rest of the UK or Europe through existing links. Same as Norway do right now.
Closure of Longannet was at least partly a political decision to ensure scotland did not have blackstart ability IMO
Oh politics were involved but it was only after it was too late that the Scotgov realised* the strategic importance and by then it was too late.
*and I mean really had reality shown to them.
the SNPs plan was to move faster on renewables to 100% of capacity and to build two new gas stations to provide blackstart and excess capacity for that winter high pressure event. Because of the high access charges and the inability of the scottish government to raise money this never happened. Renewables are just about there.
power generation is one area where independence would greatly benefit Scotland ( even tho IIRC Squirreellking and I do not agree on the direction)
Never heard about them building anything, I thought they were expecting Scottish Power to build Cockenzie B and then the project just became vapourware.
As for direction, things have moved on a lot. I'm still pro-nuclear but have never claimed it's the be-all and end-all. If it was the choice between nuclear and gas though I know which I'd rather have from an energy security standpoint.
Not commented on this thread, so here is my take as a Northumbrian living in the North of England.
We dont have an SNP to vote for in England hence the Redwalls vote nationalist via the Tories. I think there is a significant cultural/social difference between England and Scotland and this is clearly defined in brexit and the SNP.
I do chuckle when i see folks like Andrew Neil throw the whole remain argument against Scotland while brexit ignored them.
Do i think Scotland would suffer if it left the UK almost certainly, is it a price worth paying almost certainly.
The real question is how rapidly it can gain its place in the EU and the world, few countries so small have such a strong brand and they would get support from the EU and the US. Beyond this they have a small population with lots of space.
Would i move there to regain my EU citizenship and leave England to the Engerlish yes.would i create business and a few jobs yes. At least i would be in a country with a common direction and some form of social responsibility.
+1 oldmanmtb2
Because this is what our English 'cousins' have voted for, written in 2012 and lots of accurate foresight including this classic:
"They do not appear to see the world as a complex place."
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/sep/27/britannia-unchained-global-lessons-review
Lol at both the unionists and nationalists getting their knickers in a twist about bawjaws impending visit. Let him come, he's a gift from god for Independence, whatever shite he spouts will be worth at least another % on those polls.
It is rather amusing. Even the scottish tories try to distance themselves from him!
I bet he makes an overt breach of the scots rules on it and i would love to see someone try a private prosecution 🙂
tjagain
Full Member
It is rather amusing. Even the scottish tories try to distance themselves from him!I bet he makes an overt breach of the scots rules on it and i would love to see someone try a private prosecution
If Johnson or one of his entourage end up testing +ve, would be uproar, but Im pretty sure theyve all had it now as they never bothered sticking to the rules themselves!
anyway
Holyrood elections will be interesting, SNP polling v well, but its still an assumption they will get a ref legitimising majority, if for some reason they dont, then indy will be parked for a while
Holyrood elections will be interesting, SNP polling v well, but its still an assumption they will get a ref legitimising majority, if for some reason they dont, then indy will be parked for a while
I'm certainly more interested in the list vote this time around. In many cases an alternative "Indy" party would be a good choice. It could reduce the number of Unionist MSPs and might have the effect of holding the SNPs feet to the fire regarding progress towards independence.
Because this is what our English ‘cousins’ have voted for, written in 2012 and lots of accurate foresight including this classic:
I can safely bet you haven't read the book, nor have 99.99% of the electorate
So other than a review by a former labour MP how do you know what's in it?
I'm in the 99.99% btw
I’m certainly more interested in the list vote this time around. In many cases an alternative “Indy” party would be a good choice. It could reduce the number of Unionist MSPs and might have the effect of holding the SNPs feet to the fire regarding progress towards independence.
Its been pretty pointless voting snp in the list vote and even more this time. they are unlikely to get any list MSPs as the hog the constituency ones 😉 I have always been " second vote green" for this very reason. they get representation via the list and every list vote for them makes a huge difference as they are not much above the thresholds for representation - so a few thousand more votes can lead to a lot more greens
I think and hope the greens will be the major beneficiaries of the collapse in the unionist party votes. But i do hope they are learning the lessons and become a little more professional
I’m in the 99.99% btw
And I'm not.
In a previous life I worked (contractor) in a Govt dept and spent time in Central Govt - and radicals have always interested me 🙂
Hang on. What's Johnson doing getting out of a grey plane when he spent all that cash having one painted red white and blue?
The photo op in the testing centre really annoys me - there's absolutely no constructive reason for him & his entourage to be there, it's infuriating...
Finish the sentence competition:
https://twitter.com/gedfitzfilm/status/1354729401301282818?s=09
Hang on. What’s Johnson doing getting out of a grey plane when he spent all that cash having one painted red white and blue?
Cos he's toxic.
Carry on Boris, you're doing a grand job to further the independence vote
Boris Johnson says independence debate 'irrelevant' to most Scots
Gaun yerself Bawjaws
Honestly he's the gift that keeps on giving. It speaks to the man's deep seated narcissism that he thinks anyone still believes him.
Honestly they just can't help themselves. The right honourable representative of.the 18th century lets us know where we belong.
Rather sensational own goal by SNP leadership removing Joanna Cherry from the SNP front bench at Westminster. She was by far their best asset there. Presumably her long standing position as a Salmond ally, her vocal advocacy for women's rights above trans rights and her criticism of the slow path to Indy were too much for the Murrell's. She may get her revenge in the long run....
The SNP has been in power for a long time. The infighting that always goes on behind the scenes has now bubbled out into the public area. Getting rid of good politicians is just another step. As the party leadership tries to suppress the any criticism of what they are doing.
A cynic might think that the push to raise the profile of Indyref 2 has less to do with it being wanted and more to do with trying to create news to deflect from the infighting. Perhaps also to deflect from the news about the slow rollout of the vaccine compared to the other parts of the UK.
If you look at political leaders, not many survive at the top for 10 years, you sense a change is coming and then we shall really see the knives out as the factions start to gain control.
(see Conservatives post Thatcher, Labour post Brown Liberals post anyone of their leaders. Even the Greens had their public squabbles.)
The SNP has been in power for a long time. The infighting that always goes on behind the scenes has now bubbled out into the public area. Getting rid of good politicians is just another step. As the party leadership tries to suppress the any criticism of what they are doing.
A cynic might think that the push to raise the profile of Indyref 2 has less to do with it being wanted and more to do with trying to create news to deflect from the infighting. Perhaps also to deflect from the news about the slow rollout of the vaccine compared to the other parts of the UK.
I'm not sure you can accuse the SNP leadership of doing that.
If you have a cause to fight, a desire to change the world, then it makes most sense to do that within politics and it's then natural to want to be in a position to do something about it - ideally in Government. By their very success, the SNP are attracting all sorts of folk who actually have very little desire for independence, their priorities lie elsewhere. To many, that looks like the SNP are no longer really fighting for independence at all. The argument is thay "well, vote SNP, get independence and then we'll vote for the folk/party we really want" (it's been repeated several times in this very thread). Well, these folk are equally able to recognise that's what would happen and many would therefore be happy to never have a referendum, to actually have a minority SNP government or at least a range of seats in Holyrood that would be less than a total mandate for a referendum.
Nicola Sturgeon now looks like a totally weak leader. She has been unable to stop the infighting and, indeed, has been pouring fuel on the fire herself. This wasn't a time to be "taking sides" it was a time for a calm head. As the two inquiries into the SCotGov/Sturgeon handling of the Salmond affair drag on, her position looks increasingly murky. Peter Murrell now refusing to attend the current inquiry doesn't look good either.
sadmadalan
A cynic might think that the push to raise the profile of Indyref 2 has less to do with it being wanted
why? do you think the last 10 or 15 polls have been manipulated?
sadmadalan
Full Member
Perhaps also to deflect from the news about the slow rollout of the vaccine compared to the other parts of the UK.
It's no particularly slow, it's a wee bit behind at the minute, long way to go though.
It’s no particularly slow, it’s a wee bit behind at the minute, long way to go though.
A healthcare professional and prolific poster on here accused those managing the vaccinations in England of going for numbers and ignoring clinical need by not doing care homes first. The obvious implications were that England was going for crowd pleasing numbers and Scotland cared more about it's people.
I'm sure Scotland is working hard, logistics in these situations are always difficult, it's very unlikely to be a political issue just lots of people trying to do their best. Just as in the other parts of the UK.
Nicola Sturgeon now looks like a totally weak leader. She has been unable to stop the infighting and, indeed, has been pouring fuel on the fire herself. This wasn’t a time to be “taking sides” it was a time for a calm head. As the two inquiries into the SCotGov/Sturgeon handling of the Salmond affair drag on, her position looks increasingly murky.
I'm inclined to agree, and it doesn't matter if there's anything to hide the unionists/media have now found a crack that they might be able to drive a wedge into. Even if she comes out exonerated they'll not let it go, and more than Salmond's supporters will. HOWEVER:
Rather sensational own goal by SNP leadership removing Joanna Cherry from the SNP front bench at Westminster
Not sure about that! Cherry is a prominent, vocal, articulate but highly divisive character. And I'm not talking about trans rights or internal party politics - I just mean her style comes across as "I know better, listen to me, I don't need to listen to you" and that doesn't resonate well will the "maybe" voters. Salmond was the same. Great for drumming up core support but could really grate, and it becomes about them not the policy.
big_n_daft
Free Member
It’s no particularly slow, it’s a wee bit behind at the minute, long way to go though.A healthcare professional and prolific poster on here accused those managing the vaccinations in England of going for numbers and ignoring clinical need by not doing care homes first. The obvious implications were that England was going for crowd pleasing numbers and Scotland cared more about it’s people.
I’m sure Scotland is working hard, logistics in these situations are always difficult, it’s very unlikely to be a political issue just lots of people trying to do their best. Just as in the other parts of the UK.
Posted 6 hours ago
Yeah there's no political capital in anyone in the UK going slow with vaccinations. It does none of them in any of the nation's any good to go slow about it. So on that basis. I tend to think most are doing their best. Plus as I've mentioned we just need to look at the worldwide context. We are well on our way.
I just canny see how sniping about a few percent here and there or what amounts to, at the minute, a 5 day difference is particularly helpful to anyone(part from those looking to gain political points), neither is it particular slow.
All we are seeing is mildly different approaches and logistical challenges. We'll all get there or there abouts at the same time. If there's a week or 2 difference at the end up who cares. They are also systems getting put in place that will likely be used year on year.
Far as I can tell there very little cause to complain about the vaccines so far. It's the one thing they seem to have got right in this whole shit show(well in lieu of questions about Sharing supply equitably world wide but that's a whole other argument)
Nicola Sturgeon now looks like a totally weak leader. She has been unable to stop the infighting and, indeed, has been pouring fuel on the fire herself
Disagree, it's been blown out of all proportion (by interested parties). Give it a week/month and no one will remember it even occurred.
(well in lieu of questions about Sharing supply equitably world wide but that’s a whole other argument)
It's good to see you recognise that. If scottish voices say it rather than the English "our contract trumps your contract so there" it demonstrates a willingness to be part of the world order rather than an isolated island. The vaccine attitude will do as much harm to England as Brexit itself if people could but see it. The industrial strategy of European business will adapt.
Cherry is a prominent, vocal, articulate but highly divisive character. And I’m not talking about trans rights or internal party politics – I just mean her style comes across as “I know better, listen to me, I don’t need to listen to you” and that doesn’t resonate well will the “maybe” voters.
👆 definitely this.
Nicola Sturgeon now looks like a totally weak leader. She has been unable to stop the infighting and, indeed, has been pouring fuel on the fire herself
Dunno if I'd agree, the infighting is always going to happen, twas ever thus - look at every other party and it's there, indeed it was infighting in the Tory party that took us out of the EU.
The Salmond issue hasn't been the feeding frenzy the anti-SNP folks thought it would, it'll keep bubbling away, but will it come to much?.
Poly is spot on about Cherry and Salmond tbh.
I just canny see how sniping about a few percent here and there or what amounts to, at the minute, a 5 day difference is particularly helpful to anyone(part from those looking to gain political points), neither is it particular slow.
All we are seeing is mildly different approaches and logistical challenges. We’ll all get there or there abouts at the same time. If there’s a week or 2 difference at the end up who cares. They are also systems getting put in place that will likely be used year on year.
I'll be devils advocate. Do you believe if Scotland was number 1, the SNP wouldn't make sure everybody was aware of it? Although that would be admitting that the UK's vaccine purchasing strategy was incredibly successful, so who knows...
baboonz
I’ll be devils advocate. Do you believe if Scotland was number 1, the SNP wouldn’t make sure everybody was aware of it? Although that would be admitting that the UK’s vaccine purchasing strategy was incredibly successful, so who knows…
They more than likely would aye, sturgeon does like her subtle wee hints that scotland is doing a wee bit better than england, no doubt I'd say. It'd be equal bullshit though.
Same as scotland doing a wee bit better in infection rates and deaths and comparing, sorry nicola but it's still honking what ever way we look at it.
Edukator
Free MemberIt’s good to see you recognise that. If scottish voices say it rather than the English “our contract trumps your contract so there” it demonstrates a willingness to be part of the world order rather than an isolated island. The vaccine attitude will do as much harm to England as Brexit itself if people could but see it. The industrial strategy of European business will adapt.
Yeah, I stuck a thread up about it on here, I would look at a more equitable share, particularly once the over 50s and vulnerable are done. but tbh I don't really see it happening, the UK will go full steam ahead with vaccinating the whole population I think. The politics domestically outweigh any international concerns though is really the only conclusion you can come to there.
in fairness to the uk they, they haven't been shy in funding for vaccine development and will more than likely continue to help fund the likes of the WHO and COVAX etc, but vaccinating the domestic population will take priority I think.
Ultimately though, I think this whole vaccine issue is going to be a longer running issue, so the fact of who gets there first in general is a bit moot, because the goal isn't to vaccinated 1 country and that's it. The goal is to vaccinate all countries every year or every couple of year, depending on what will be needed. So for that the world needs much more robust systems in place.
So really the initial race is a bit of an irrelevance to the ultimate goal.
Hmm, as with any story, look beyond the headline and the reporting...
Headline:
Independence could cost Scotland's economy £11bn a year, forecast suggests
Economists say impact of leaving UK’s common market would hit two to three times as hard as leaving EU
Within the story:
Suggesting that the worst economic effects would take several decades to take hold, the LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance said the impacts on its trade with both the UK and the EU would shrink Scotland’s economy in the long run by between 6.3% and 8.7%.
Now lets look at the data:
The analysis leads to two main conclusions. First, the negative impact of independence on
Scotland’s economy is two to three times greater than the costs of Brexit. As shown in Figure
1, we estimate that Brexit reduces Scotland’s long-run income per capita by 2.0%. By contrast,
the combination of Brexit and independence reduces Scottish income per capita by between
6.3% and 8.7% depending upon whether border costs are low or high and whether Scotland
rejoins the EU. Independence hits Scotland’s economy harder than Brexit primarily because
Scottish trade with the rest of the UK is four times larger than its trade with the EU
Both the UK and Scottish Govt's forecast Brexit at a 6% hit on the Scottish economy, so either they're both way out and it's "only" 2% or someone is trying to hide the cost of Brexit within independence OR the worse case, the report authors have missed the additional 4% hit.
Or am I reading this wrong?
Given that brexit has happened. I personally can't see Scotland, when the time comes, prioritising rejoining the EU over negotiating issues on this island first.
Guess it'll all depend on London's attitude when it comes to negotiating mind.
Most of the folk saying Scotland can't make it are regurgitating BritNat bilge like this.
I saw and heard similar stuff when I lived in the East African colonies* about them during their independence campaigns. It's from the same playbook.
It was first used during the American Revolution, and it's almost the same words. (I'll try and find the quote, it's a long time since I've seen it)
I wonder if there's an old Colonial Office handbook somewhere that prescribes the wording and the superior honeyed tones in which to make such pronouncements.
*And before any BritNats start wittering on about the African economies, what really matters is not one of them wants British rule again, no matter how dire things are there.
I can safely bet you haven’t read the book, nor have 99.99% of the electorate
I'm still waiting big & daft.
Just because I NOW live in the Borders doesn't mean I'm just some rural cousin who hasn't been, seen & done it.
+1 epicyclo
Just had a conversation on Twitter:
Them:
Scotland are tragically poor under the SNP.
Me:
GDP per Capita
UK - £31,900
Scotland - £32,800
Seems someone is dragging the UK down, and it ain't us.
Them:
Yes, the UK businesses in Scotland boost your economy significantly. That's as long as you remain part of the UK of course. Otherwise they'll move south...
Summary
I CBA to go any further with the conversation, but, according to the above 'theory' if we left the UK then they'd take all their jobs that they pay us more to do than it'd cost them to do them themselves.
I’m still waiting big & daft.
Just because I NOW live in the Borders doesn’t mean I’m just some rural cousin who hasn’t been, seen & done it.
I'm dutifully surprised that you read it, but as a former/ current wonk I'm sure you can give a better précis than a review by a labour MP. What are the basic arguments from your "seen it, done it" perspective?
Why do you think politicians write these books? The sales must be tiny so who reads them and why? Then why do they move on from them when they are in office and can implement their radical agenda?
GDP per Capita
UK – £31,900
Scotland – £32,800
Seems someone is dragging the UK down, and it ain’t us.
Remind me, what's the Barnett formula differential and what is it's influence on GDP of the individual nations?
Most of the folk saying Scotland can’t make it are regurgitating BritNat bilge like this.
On here no-one is saying Scotland can't be independent, so why are you saying they are?
Has anyone on here used "BritNat bilge", what was it they said?
So you think the Barnett formula is boosting the Scottish GDP? Presumably you can explain the lack of correlation between Barnett and GDP in other nations and at other times?
So you think the Barnett formula is boosting the Scottish GDP? Presumably you can explain the lack of correlation between Barnett and GDP in other nations and at other times?
Are you saying it doesn't?
Are you ignoring the issues for the other nations as a fig leaf to say there is no link between public spending and GDP?
Why do you think politicians write these books? The sales must be tiny so who reads them and why? Then why do they move on from them when they are in office and can implement their radical agenda?
I'll come back to your first question, but for the above in a nutshell, to get noticed.
And it worked as they're all Ministers and now able to both feast from the trough AND get their backers (with the shovels) to the trough.
The Formula for Expenditure GDP
GDP=C+I+G+(X−M)
where:
C=Consumer spending on goods and services
I=Investor spending on business capital goods
G=Government spending on public goods and services
X=exports
M=imports
I’ll come back to your first question, but for the above in a nutshell, to get noticed.
By who and why? Do you not think it is essentially long form click bait by being "radical".
And it worked as they’re all Ministers and now able to both feast from the trough AND get their backers (with the shovels) to the trough.
Does this not apply to all political parties? Is any party immune to grifters and the influence of their backers?
George Monbiot putting my local MP Andrew Bowie to the sword on the BBC of all places was glorious viewing.