|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Mon 11 May 17:57
Got to say. Clear messages. Articulate. Holds her temper against ridiculous and continuous questions designed to trip her up. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but streets ahead of any of the others. A credit to Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 11 May 18:48
Quote:
pacifist, Mon 11 May 17:57
Got to say. Clear messages. Articulate. Holds her temper against ridiculous and continuous questions designed to trip her up. Maybe not everyone's cup of tea, but streets ahead of any of the others. A credit to Scotland.
Have not seen Welsh or NI broadcasts assuming there are some. Certainly miles ahead of the UK (English) version.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 11 May 19:49
In fairness, the bar isn't exactly set high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 11 May 20:09
The bar is always set high for any politician supporting independence. On the other hand it always seems to be set very low for its opponents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Mon 11 May 21:46
I do not like her politics. But she has been nothing but brilliant from day one of lockdown. Every day clear and concise.
It was always though going to end up political as SNP couldn't be seen to agree to everything said by the tories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 11 May 21:52
Quote:
dafc, Mon 11 May 21:46
I do not like her politics. But she has been nothing but brilliant from day one of lockdown. Every day clear and concise.
It was always though going to end up political as SNP couldn't be seen to agree to everything said by the tories.
So who do you think is correct with the recent information? SNP or Boris and Westminster?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 12 May 13:50
Another sure-footed performance from NS today in the face of some rather hostile questioning from the media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 12 May 14:53
A lot probably as a result of the BBC programme last night!š”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Tue 12 May 18:42
Only time will tell, however if Scotland is behind England as both have confirmed then can't both be correct?
We will be where England are very soon, Nicola is airing on side of caution I suspect and probably rightly so. But everyone is going to be paying for this for a lot of years, and it probably financially rules out any Indy vote for for foreseeable as we simply can't afford the divorce bill now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 12 May 19:02
Quote:
dafc, Tue 12 May 18:42
Only time will tell, however if Scotland is behind England as both have confirmed then can't both be correct?
We will be where England are very soon, Nicola is airing on side of caution I suspect and probably rightly so. But everyone is going to be paying for this for a lot of years, and it probably financially rules out any Indy vote for for foreseeable as we simply can't afford the divorce bill now.
Once England get their second spike we will need to close the border. š¤£š¤£š¤£
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 12 May 22:20
Quote:
dafc, Tue 12 May 18:42
Only time will tell, however if Scotland is behind England as both have confirmed then can't both be correct?
We will be where England are very soon, Nicola is airing on side of caution I suspect and probably rightly so. But everyone is going to be paying for this for a lot of years, and it probably financially rules out any Indy vote for for foreseeable as we simply can't afford the divorce bill now.
Can the UK afford the bill? Will the bill be more for Scotland if they're independent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 12 May 22:32
Prepare for a miracle - I'm about to agree with Tenruh.
I've seen a fair few people ask the question of how would Scotland afford all these measures to support the economy during a global pandemic if it was independent. The simple answer is it couldn't, but neither can the UK. We would do as the UK has done - borrow.
The economy will bounce back but the debts accrued during this lockdown will cost us for many, many years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: pacifist
Date: Wed 13 May 10:41
The uk was already over Ā£2 trillion in debt before the pandemic. Every additional penny being spent is added to the debt. If we were independent we could have taken different choices like new zealand. However, we would still have had the capacity to borrow like every other country. We have been given no favours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 13 May 11:43
Yeah, it's amazing how small countries like Denmark, Finland, Ireland etc manage fine on their own but, uniquely, Scotland, despite its many natural resources, would struggle apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: back oh the net
Date: Wed 13 May 14:15
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 13 May 11:43
Yeah, it's amazing how small countries like Denmark, Finland, Ireland etc manage fine on their own but, uniquely, Scotland, despite its many natural resources, would struggle apparently.
Aye but itās only those who are desperate to see the westmonster strangle hold remain in place that say we would struggle
Come on ye pars ā½ļø
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Wed 13 May 14:18
Having watched Holyrood at midday, the opposition parties are struggling for leaders!š
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 13 May 17:23
Saw one of the questions was effectively "why isn't Scotland staying in line with England?" The response was pretty much "well why isn't England staying in line with Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland?".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: doctordandruff
Date: Fri 15 May 15:54
Appalling levels of testing, shocking deaths in care, locked down 2 weeks ahead of London on the curve but are now well behind.
The Scottish Government are having an absolute disaster yet cannot be held to account because, well, the supporters seem to shut down scrutiny, journalists are crap and she is being compared next to that big blond bawbag in Westminster where you cant fail to look competent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 15 May 15:55
Douglas Chapman staying quiet at the moment. Just a few weeks ago he was boasting at how few deaths we had in Scotland...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Fri 15 May 21:52
Quote:
doctordandruff, Fri 15 May 15:54
Appalling levels of testing, shocking deaths in care, locked down 2 weeks ahead of London on the curve but are now well behind.
The Scottish Government are having an absolute disaster yet cannot be held to account because, well, the supporters seem to shut down scrutiny, journalists are crap and she is being compared next to that big blond bawbag in Westminster where you cant fail to look competent
On 20 March, the four governmentsĀ shut all schools,Ā restaurants, pubs, indoor entertainment venues and leisure centres, with some exceptions.On 23 March, the UK government imposed a lockdown on the whole population, banning all "non-essential" travel and contact with people outside one's home (including family andĀ partners), and shutting almost all businesses, venues, facilities, amenities and places of worship. People were told toĀ keep apartĀ in public. Police were empowered to enforce the lockdown, and theĀ Coronavirus Act 2020Ā gave the governmentĀ lĀ not used since theĀ Second World War.
Looks like all the UK went into lockdown at the same time.... Including London
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 15 May 22:11
London had Coronavirus first. Roughly 2 weeks before Scotland. So Scotland locked down 2 weeks earlier *into the spread* than London.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Fri 15 May 22:44
One study by epidemiologists at Edinburgh University concluded 2,000 lives could have been saved if Scotland had locked down 2 weeks earlier so is the Scottish government being accused of locking down too early or too late?
I don't think it has the legal powers to lock down earlier than the UK government decrees and it certainly doesn't have the borrowing powers to enable it to go it alone under the devolution settlement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 15 May 22:58
I can't really find any evidence of London having it first. The first official case of covid-19 in the UK was in York at the very end of January but there is now some evidence that it had been doing the rounds in that area for sometime before that after the several members of a choir had reported corona virus symptoms after a partner of a choir member had returend from Wuhan.
Coincidentally it's actually the northeast of England that has the highest infection rate in the UK which is where that first official case was treated.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
Post Edited (Fri 15 May 22:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Fri 15 May 23:48
ā A SPECIAL envoy to the World Health Organisation on the coronavirus crisis has said Scotland is "doing good" in its response to the pandemic.
Dr David Nabarro, who has previously worked with the United Nations and the Director-General of the WHO, told the BBC he was impressed with Nicola Sturgeon's decision not to ease lockdown restrictions.
He said he admired the approach by the Scottish Government and the public health authorities.
He told the BBC: "Comparing Scotland with other parts of Europe, other parts of the world, I'd say you're doing good because you are tackling it carefully and logically. You are thinking through how do we make sure people are safe and how do we make sure the economy can restart? And you are layering these two together.
"There are some countries which are saying it's either the economy or people's health and they are presenting it as a choice. It's not a choice. You are watching, learning, applying, coming to terms with it. And most importantly you are levelling with the people what the government is trying to work through." ā
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 16 May 07:54
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 15 May 22:58
I can't really find any evidence of London having it first. The first official case of covid-19 in the UK was in York at the very end of January but there is now some evidence that it had been doing the rounds in that area for sometime before that after the several members of a choir had reported corona virus symptoms after a partner of a choir member had returend from Wuhan.
Coincidentally it's actually the northeast of England that has the highest infection rate in the UK which is where that first official case was treated.
First in a comparison between London and Scotland. Of course, we now know many of us may have had it last year and not realised. The first case in London was mid-Feb. First case in Scotland was the start of March.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Sat 16 May 09:35
My Daughter and Partner were in Italy in Oct and both were seriously unwell with severe flu symptoms ...Dec into January and both are convinced now we know more about it that they did in fact have it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 16 May 10:10
Fair enough Jake, I misunderstood your point.
I don't really buy this notion that we are two weeks behind London because of that very fact you highlight. It had been doing the rounds long before the lockdown kicked in and that is why the northeast of England is the region with the highest infection rate, far higher than densely populated London. In Scotland we began testing for the virus in hospitals and go surgeries on February 29th and the first cases detected was the following day.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: doctordandruff
Date: Sat 16 May 15:56
Nicola Sturgeon has been saying we are behind England on the infection curve on an almost daily basis. When you compare our stats with those of most similarly sized nations, it's looking like a disaster. Even within the uk, our testing levels are a disgrace. What i think we get with Sturgeon is she is pragmatic in her messaging, she isn't making it a political 'SNP is great' conference and I feel she would introduce measures that could damage SNP support if she felt it was right. Not a feeling I get from BJ
Post Edited (Sat 16 May 15:57)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Sat 16 May 17:19
Quote:
doctordandruff, Sat 16 May 15:56
Nicola Sturgeon has been saying we are behind England on the infection curve on an almost daily basis. When you compare our stats with those of most similarly sized nations, it's looking like a disaster. Even within the uk, our testing levels are a disgrace. What i think we get with Sturgeon is she is pragmatic in her messaging, she isn't making it a political 'SNP is great' conference and I feel she would introduce measures that could damage SNP support if she felt it was right. Not a feeling I get from BJ
I think she would if required. BJ is driven only by the economy and his party donors. Not interested in saving people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 16 May 17:40
Deaths is the true figure to look at. Infections recording is far from accurate.
27,432 deaths in England
2,094 deaths in Scotland
England has almost exactly 10x the population of Scotland but 13x the number of deaths. However, until there are zero deaths in both nations we won't have accurate data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 16 May 20:37
As regards Nicola Sturgeon, I think she gives an air of competence, but it is slightly superficial. I would expect any company executive to be able to give a good account of themselves in such a Q&A setting ā for example, I caught the Welsh FM at his presser the other day and he seemed pretty decent. (UK Government ministers have been pretty hopeless ā even from a cabinet largely stuffed with incompetents I would expect better).
Of course, almost everything will be done by design. I assume the timing is to give her āFirst Moverā advantage over the Westminster briefing, and to make the 1 oāclock news headlines. True, she takes a lot of questions, but most of them are after the 1 p.m. deadline when people switch over to the Network news, and there are no follow ups. This allows her to waffle. Sheās always āfollowing the scienceā and āengaging with stakeholdersā and ātaking appropriate stepsā to ensure that the stable door is locked in ādue courseā.
She has serious questions to answer over the death toll ā one of the largest per million in the world - the handling of those in care-homes, the lack of testing, provision of PPE in general (and in the care sector in particular), lack of transparency (including potential cover-ups) plus the provision of the financial packages and delays in death in service payments to those in the care sector (but not in the NHS).
She will also be having to answer serious questions as regards her political future, if press stories are to be believed (I know). Salmond appears to be gunning for revenge, Cherry and Robertson are scrapping over the Edinburgh Central seat, presumably with an eye to being FM; meanwhile Sturgeonās other likely successor (Deek Mackay) has fallen on his sword (although appears still to drawing his salary) ā and no-one else appears to get a look-in at her pressers, apart from Jeane Freeman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 16 May 20:41
As regards independence and natural resources.
Is anyone saying we couldnāt manage? We would just be much worse off. And who gets hit hardest when cuts have to be made to public spending? The weak, the poor and the vulnerable.
The 2014 White Paper was based on Oil and Gas revenues paying for a huge percentage of public spending (assuming oil would be traded at, what was it, $110 per barrel)? Now itās $33 and suddenly thereās a climate emergency. It was irresponsible in the extreme to base your financial case on such a volatile commodity (but fortunately we didnāt vote for it, and HMT is able to borrow billions so we can sit at home).
Whatever happened to Bertiewasbest? Didnāt he use to make claims about abundant ānatural resourcesā? From memory these seemed to be based on having a lot of sheep and water. It was never clear how you could suddenly monetise them in a way you canāt now.
Yes, we could take different choices. But realistically we couldnāt suddenly become a sparsely populated island group in the middle of nowhere, though. Which must be a big factor in New Zealandās ability to deal with their Coronavirus crisis. But Iām not convinced tweaking Corporation Tax for example is going to have the transformatory effect that would be required.
As for borrowing, our capacity to borrow wouldnāt be like every other country ā these are all different. A lack of borrowing history would be an issue; size of deficit, GDP in absolute terms and per capita would be factors. Any divorce settlement and reaction to it also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Sat 16 May 20:47
Finally, Coronavirus. Iām not an epidemiologist or a virologist. However, I think the lock-down is under Scottish Legislation, and presumably could have been enacted earlier (although I admit it would have been hard). One problem is that we canāt be sure when the first cases were due to the SGās secrecy (and delay of FOI requests). But I would guess that original cases would have been ācaughtā abroad. There is anecdotal evidence of cases arising from people coming back from Italian skiing holidays, for example. These cases will be randomly distributed throughout the country, but secondary transmission is more likely to be prevalent in the more densely populated places. I can believe that London commuters caught in on the Underground, then brought it back to the shires, where it spread some more. Hence I can believe that we are ābehindā London. There is some evidence that cases in the Borders and Dumfries and Galloway have slowed more ā which is consistent with the notion of āshock-waveā effect. Looking at the map on the BBC website, it looks like Cumbria and Tyne and Wear are the worst hit per capita. (Plus South Wales).
Given its virulence, I would have though that had it been around in the Autumn, then it would have spread quickly and there would have been noticeable spikes in death rates then (or after a suitable delay).
I note that todayās death total in Scotland is 2094 which would put us about 8th in the world (UK is 6th according to Worldometer). But I think that is just an NHS rate. On Wednesdays they announce a higher figure which adds about 60-70% onto that ā I think this is from SNR analysis of death certificates. So we could be up to 4th behind San Marino, Belgium and Andorra.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 16 May 21:54
You used to tell us you weren't an economist, MCT, but it didn't stop you spouting about economics and now you're telling us you're not an epidemiologist or a virologist as a precursor to your theories about the spread of coronavirus. You like to come across as an objective observer of the political scene but your post about Nicola Sturgeon is loaded with bias. If she held her briefing later in the day you would be accusing her of pitching it at the 6 o'clock news or the 10 o'clock news or whatever. All the charges of incompetence you make against her could be levelled against the Westminster government to a much greater degree but that doesn't seem to matter. The fact that she always fronts the weekday conferences is seen as a weakness. What's Boris Johnson doing when Uncle Tom Cobley and all are leading the UK briefings?
Maybe you can answer a question I have asked before, not just on here, and never heard a credible answer to. If Scotland is such a financial basket case why are Unionists so determined to keep us in the Union and why won't they contemplate another referendum which, if they were to be believed, would settle the matter once and for all?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 16 May 22:43
MT, the English death toll today was 34466 (but like you say that is likely to increase significantly once the ons adjust it) so surely England would be higher in that world ranking. Though perhaps my arthmatic has let me down.
Ignore me it's my reading that's let me down. 34466 is the UK death toll.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
Post Edited (Sat 16 May 22:45)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 18 May 12:17
wee eck ā Iām still not an economist ā but feel free to try to pick holes in my economic or epidemiological arguments ā thatās why weāre here. Iām only trying to learn.
Do you think the timing of press conferences is random? It will be chosen; only the reasons are in doubt. I say it is to make Nicola look good, at least partially. Thereās little point doing it in the afternoon ā Boris (or whoever) will have the 6 p.m. headlines sown up.
This thread was about Sturgeon, hence Iām commenting on her. I said the UK Government is full of incompetents, you are welcome to dispute this.
Am I biased against her? Well, I think she is over-rated. Better than most in the UK Government? Possibly. But I donāt think she has achieved much ā other than split the country. Yet she seems to have achieved almost saintly status, which I find disturbing on several levels.
I think Westminster has traditionally had a more collegiate approach to Government, where the Prime Minister was seen as a āfirst amongst equalsā. Arguably Thatcher and Blair were more āPresidentialā. Itās difficult to know with Johnston as he seems rather indolent (his illness not withstanding).
The Scottish Government seems to be more of a one woman show (although I think Freeman took the presser yesterday ā fair enough, the FM could do with a break). This isnāt a particularly firm opinion, more speculation, but I wonder if this contributes to the āpersonality cultā. Is she afraid that a challenger for her position will emerge? Or is no-one else up to the job? Presumably Swinney could pitch up to answer questions about Education, or Gail Ross about the economy.
As for your question about Scotland being wanted despite being ābasket caseā (your words) - I donāt think it is particularly a basket case, but we benefit enormously from being part of a nation that has London and the SE in it.
There are several answers. (It can depend on which side of the border you are). By the way, is āUnionistā not a bit pejorative? Are people who want to be part of the EU not Unionists as well?
1 ā Security of the northern border (as far as England is concerned). You donāt want hassle with your neighbours. Reach peace. You donāt want the FM of an Indy Scotland cosying up to the Kremlin (but that would never happenā¦)
2 ā Itās part of being a Union. You look after your own through thick and thin. Perhaps we should bin the Falklands. Or Gibraltar. Or Northern Ireland. Maybe an indy Scotland would bin the Hebrides. Or Dundee. Or the old people and the infirm ā are they not a drain on society? Is this not a similar argument? Itās difficult to think of an example where this has happened.
3 ā There may be economies of scale, or future benefits. Better being part of a bigger country with bigger and different attributes than a smaller one. And there might be times in the future when they more than pay their way again.
As for another referendum ā no thanks. Referenda are divisive, horrible things. Think of the hatred and vitriol stirred up last time (and with the Euro ref). We decided. You canāt keep having one every couple of years ā nothing happens in the interim ā see the long list above of Sturgeonās achievements. The uncertainty is bad for business and bad for the economy. (And Iām not convinced the SG is that keen on one either. Theyāre quite happy being in power (without taking responsibility). Keep hinting that there might be a referendum this year, no, next year, no, the year after, blame the Englā¦Tories for all the things that go wrong and keep accruing that generous pension.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 18 May 13:46
You seem to be arguing against yourself re the timing of the daily briefing. Obviously it wouldn't make sense to have it at the same time as the UK government one so lunchtime seems sensible. Doesn't the Welsh government use the same time slot? I doubt there are any Machiavellian motives behind the timing of these briefings. I think Jeane Freeman always fronts the Sunday briefings.
To say Nicola Sturgeon hasn't achieved much is breathtaking and betrays your bias. She has played a major part in establishing the SNP as the party of government in Scotland since 2007. How else do you judge a politician than by electoral success? You may not like her politics but the majority of people in Scotland clearly do. Who is 'Gail Ross' by the way? I'm no political nerd but I think I would have heard of her if she held a prominent position in government.
I don't see 'Unionist' as a pejorative term. It simply describes people who support the UK as a political entity. I see your list of advantages of being part of the UK. For me none of them outweighs the huge disadvantage of being forced along a road that the majority of people in Scotland don't want to follow. The most recent illustration of this of course was the outcome of the EU referendum where 62% of the Scottish electorate wanted to remain but the much smaller percentage in favour of leaving in England held sway. What's the point of being in union with a much bigger country which has a different view on such a fundamental issue? It's anti-democratic.
Politics are divisive by their nature. If political parties persuade the electorate to support their policies you can't just ignore them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: doctordandruff
Date: Mon 18 May 14:32
Jeez, if you view Sturgeon through SNP filter obviously she is a success. If you view her through a First Minister filter then I cannot see how you can possibly defend her record, particularly on education.
It is an absolute disgrace and is only kept from being a bigger scandal by the fact we live in a country where it verges on impossible to criticise the government on a public platform.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 18 May 15:23
The media are about 90% anti-independence and you say it's impossible to criticise the government. That hardly makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Mon 18 May 16:01
Quote:
doctordandruff, Mon 18 May 14:32
Jeez, if you view Sturgeon through SNP filter obviously she is a success. If you view her through a First Minister filter then I cannot see how you can possibly defend her record, particularly on education.
It is an absolute disgrace and is only kept from being a bigger scandal by the fact we live in a country where it verges on impossible to criticise the government on a public platform.
The SNP are the most criticised party in the uk. Things are quieter at the moment as no one wants to be seen to be too political.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: doctordandruff
Date: Mon 18 May 16:18
I said on a public platform. And here I am on a public platform getting told I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 18 May 16:40
That's a pretty limited definition of 'public platform' but you're on here criticising them, so what's the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 18 May 17:31
''...we live in a country where it verges on impossible to criticise the government on a public platform.''
''...And here I am on a public platform getting told I am wrong.''
You have the opportunity to criticise the government on this public platform but that doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with you. It's called Free Speech.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Mon 18 May 17:34
I think itās fair to describe both The Daily Express and the Daily Mail as public platforms. They are both sold in Scotland.
Almost every day there is a photo of Nicola Sturgeon accompanying a negative story about something she has said, often accompanied by the word āplot.ā Today she is being accused of a ācover upā regarding Covid deaths, quite a breathtaking piece of chutzpah from any UK newspaper. Along with EU bigwig Barnier, Sturgeon is seen as a threat to all that these papers hold dear, and since the political demise of Jeremy Corbyn is being prepared as a hate figure for Middle England. I am not aware of one single positive, or even neutral, story that has been reported in relation to either Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP. She is cast in a negative light in every single article.
I think these papers are making a serious miscalculation in presenting Sturgeon as a bogey woman, for she shows little inclination to confront the constitutional battle that would be required to establish an independent Scotland. The talk of a rival ISP has not yet been picked up on the radar of these papers and I would anticipate their attitude to Sturgeon becoming much more accommodating if or when he threat of a more militant independence gathers support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: doctordandruff
Date: Mon 18 May 17:54
I think we have very different definitions of what a public platform is. I would suggest that a publisher, such as Trinity Mirror or whoever it is, is actually the exact opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 18 May 18:41
What's your definition of a public platform then and how are you denied criticism of the government on it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 18 May 19:58
Sorry ā not Gail Ross. I meant Kate Forbes. (I think Kate is from Gailās constituency. Maybe that is why I mixed them up). Of course, if Gail was on TV more often, perhaps I would be better at telling them apartā¦ (joke).
The SNP/SG will make every media move very carefully. As I said, if theyāve chosen 12:30 rather than 12 or 2 or 4:30 p.m. they will have done that deliberately. You may have a different opinion ā fine, letās not fall out over itā¦
(I donāt normally watch the Sunday briefings).
Nicola has become successful electorally, but what has she actually achieved? Anything big? Equal Marriage. What else? Some years the parliament has barely passed any substantive legislation at all. (Iām not looking for a list of tweaks here)
David Cameron seemed to be one (and BoJo is probably another, although he may be remembered for taking us out of Europe) for whom becoming PM seemed to be an end in itself ā endowing success and justifying his career choices, without actually knowing what he wanted to do once he got there. Some, on the other hand, were able to make transformational changes.
For Nicola, her top priority is independence. (Or it was ā Iām not convinced she truly believes anymore. Have you read the Scottish Growth Commission report? A decade of austerity. And that was before COVID-19).
Of course, she claims education is her top priority ā but again, what has she achieved? I guess we canāt be doing spectacularly well in the international league tables, if theyāre not being published. Has she reformed local government funding like she said she would?
As for Europe ā historically, the SNP were against joining the EEC and campaigned to leave it. I think that ambivalence has persisted ā being in the EU isnāt really āIndependenceā. Thatās why a lot of SNP members must have voted to leave. And the SNP hardly campaigned at the Euro Ref. I think they were hedging their bets. āLosingā would open up the Indy debate again and give them a sense of grievance. But we had it in our own hands. One million Scots voted to leave ā if they had voted the other way, weād be staying. Plus I donāt remember huge amounts of pro-Europeanism in the past ā I think itās more a case of emphasising differences from England.
Where do you stop with the āah, but we didnāt vote for itā argument? If Edinburgh didnāt vote SNP should it secede from Scotland? Should Marchmont then secede from Edinburgh? Should Marchmont Road secede from Marchmont if it didnāt get the result it wanted?
As for criticising the SNP ā you canāt do that if you are an SNP elected representative (although Angus Brendan seems to get away with it) ā itās against Party Rules. I donāt think that encourages healthy debate, or good decision making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 18 May 20:27
Of course you can pick areas where the government could have done better but the fact is that overall the Scottish electorate likes the SNP's policies and are generally happy with how they run the country. You can attribute any motives you like to people who voted SNP but NS is widely respected throughout the UK where people judge her on her ability rather than on her politics which is why she seems to attract such antipathy up here.
I find all that stuff comparing Scotland's position in the union with a city/area/street etc totally specious and rather insulting. We're discussing two nations being in a union where one can dominate another purely because of its size. Why would the smaller one think that's a good idea?
Excuse my ignorance but who is Gail Ross and who is Angus Brendan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Mon 18 May 20:54
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Mon 18 May 21:10
Gail Ross is MSP for Caithness, Sutherland and Ross. (Curiously this is a larger constituency than the near-equivalent Westminster one).
Angus Brendan McNeil is MP for Na-h-Eileanan an Iar (aka the Western Isles).
Yes, the electorate seems to be satisfied with the SNP performance as a whole. Clearly they attract support from those who do not favour independence.
NS is well regarded in rUK - my argument is this is a rather an instant judgment based largely on her ability to talk a good game (and manage the media).
Do you disagree that she seems to have a cult following?
If England were to demerge into 10 statelets - Northumbria, Wessex, Cornwall, Mercia etc etc would you be happy to remain in the union? None of the 13 nations would be able to dominate the others...
It's inevitable that a larger grouping has more electoral power than a smaller grouping. But we all have 1 vote. We don't vote as a block
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Mon 18 May 21:15
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Mon 18 May 23:24
MCT, you accused me of using 'Unionist' in a pejorative way. Well, I think you're using 'cult following' in a pejorative way. She is popular, probably because people consider her more honest and less devious than most politicians. She is also an excellent communicator.
All this stuff about English statelets is just fantasy as far as I'm concerned. BigJPar probably sums it up better than I could. I've always suspected that a lot of Scottish Unionists support the Union because it's a a way of denying the majority of Scots the government they want and giving the minority the complexion of government they want at UK level - the antithesis of democracy. Personally, I can't understand why any country wouldn't want to run its own affairs given the chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Tue 19 May 17:20
Nicola and her cult following. That's the biggest load of tosh written on here for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 19 May 18:12
Tbh, I'll never understand how people so easily affiliate themselves with political parties. It's bizarre that so many seem to get upset when you question anything about a party whether is the SNP, Labour or the Tories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 19 May 18:48
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 19 May 19:12
What a lot of absolute nonsense.
Welcome to the discussion BigJ ā do you want to be more specific?
The union is an archaic institution that serves Scotland no purpose at all.
I feel Iām going to regret rising to the bait, but how about access to a fiscal transfer of > Ā£10bn p.a. and which pays for a significant portion of our public services?
German monarch . A bit off-topic, but Nicolaās not Germanā¦or do you mean Queen Elizabeth? She was born in England. As were both her parents. How is she German? And what does it matter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 19 May 19:14
Nicola and her cult following. That's the biggest load of tosh written on here for a long time.
That's some accolade - do I win a prize?
(Have I touched a nerve?)
Post Edited (Tue 19 May 19:15)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Tue 19 May 19:32
All this stuff about English statelets is just fantasy as far as I'm concerned.
Neatly side-stepped. Your answer would have been interesting.
Personally, I can't understand why any country wouldn't want to run its own affairs given the chance
Well, most people in Scotland voted for that at the Euro Ref.
Nationalists seem to view a ānationā as being the most important grouping, and one which drives their thinking. Others donāt ā they see the individual as having primacy, or things in terms of a āclass structureā.
To me, a nation is a slightly arbitrary concept. Often an accident of history or geography. Very often an artificial construct created by an imperial power drawing a random line on a map. (I think Hurricane Jimmy would agree with me here.)
Many nations have arisen as the amalgamation (or āunionā) of smaller nations ā sometimes through marriage, or acquisition, or mutual agreement. Scotland, Ireland, the UK, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, the USA are examples.
It is common to cede some sovereignty in exchange for something else ā such as security ā be it financial or personal or ānationalā. The SNP is happy to do this (allegedly). This is why I find their position illogical (and why I donāt trust it, frankly). They seem happy to cede control over some things (and to give up some of those so-important financial levers) to Brussels or Strasbourg but not to London. Me, Iām happy to do both. (And to do things the other way, rather than centralise everything in Edinburgh).
I've always suspected that a lot of Scottish Unionists support the Union because it's a a way of denying the majority of Scots the government they want and giving the minority the complexion of government they want at UK level .
Itās not clear what the majority of Scots want. Most of them (and Iām referring to voters in Scotland) voted to remain in the UK; then a large minority voted for a party that couldnāt form a UK government, so it should be little surprise that their party didnāt āwinā. Most people in the UK didnāt get the government they wanted. Most people in Scotland didnāt either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Tue 19 May 19:44
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 19 May 20:41
You seem to have a very fluid definition of a 'nation', MCT. All those you cite are recognised as such by the United Nations. Presumably you don't recognise Scotland as a nation because it has been absorbed into the UK which you recognise as a nation. That makes sense in the context of your arguments about English 'statelets' and comparing Scotland with regions, cities, districts etc. Presumably when Scotland takes part in sporting events in its own right you just see it as representing a particular geographical area. If we follow that route we'll probably end up with no international sports sides.
I don't see why it is illogical to want to be independent but part of the EU. All the other members of the EU are. It's quite common to want to be a member of one club but not another. Westminster exerts much more control over Scotland than the EU ever did.
Your final paragraph just seems to betray the fact that you don't seem to see Scotland as a nation, certainly in a political sense. I would have thought it's pretty clear that the majority of Scots don't want a Tory or Labour government at Westminster. Do you think it would be better if the SNP weren't allowed to stand in UK elections as they can never win enough seats to form a government in Westminster?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 20 May 08:28
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Tue 19 May 19:14
Nicola and her cult following. That's the biggest load of tosh written on here for a long time.
That's some accolade - do I win a prize?
(Have I touched a nerve?)
A nerve. What does that mean? You see that's an opinion I have. You think there is a cult, I think you talking a load of tosh. That's how opinions work.
Why don't you try putting down facts rather than your conjecture?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 20 May 08:51
MCT seems to have attracted a cult following of his own on here. His attitude to NS is like football fans who give the opposition's star player a hard time; singling them out for attention speaks volumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 20 May 16:59
A nerve. What does that mean? You see that's an opinion I have. You think there is a cult, I think you talking a load of tosh. That's how opinions work.
I still think youāre making my point for me. (Just an opinion.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Wed 20 May 17:03
Quote:
McCaig`s Tower, Wed 20 May 16:59
A nerve. What does that mean? You see that's an opinion I have. You think there is a cult, I think you talking a load of tosh. That's how opinions work.
I still think youāre making my point for me. (Just an opinion.)
You know I used to disagree with most of what you say but recently I think you are talking absolute tosh. You used to at least put together reasoned arguments with some supporting evidence.
Now you are just spouting your unqualified opinions. Which you are entitled to, but you provide no evidence.
So what point have I made for you do you think.
Post Edited (Wed 20 May 17:03)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Wed 20 May 17:06
wee eck
Iām quite happy for Scotland to be a nation ā I have a fluid definition of the term. Iām sure that will be a source of considerable relief for you.
If I gave it any thought I might be happy for the Sioux and the Inuit and the Kurds and the Kosovans to be nations too. Obviously qualification could be an issue ā weāre heading into blood and soil territory here.
Westminster doesnāt have a lot of influence over health and education in Scotland, yet if we were notionally independent it would still have plenty influence over our economy. Your argument appears to be one of degree, (which is fair enough). The illogicality appears to be that the SNP want (Scotland to have) less influence in some areas than it currently enjoys (yet calls this āindependenceā). What is Jim Sillarsā view on this?
Representative sport is an interesting one. When did this start? With the Universities and the Boat Race? County cricket? Hampshire against the Gentlemen of Kent? The first international was apparently a cricket match between the USA and Canada in 1844. Iām not even sure Canada was a country back then. The first test match was England against Australia in 1877. All players from the British Isles (and indeed from Europe, for a spell) were qualified for England ā now itās just English and Welsh. But itās easy to become English or Welsh. New Zealanders were able to play for Australia. The West Indies is a combined international team; as is Ireland now arguably. (Edited to remove duplication)
International rugby seemed to start in 1871, football in 1872. Rugby has an all Ireland team, and sometimes the British and Irish Lions. Nowadays in football places like the Faroes, Gibraltar, the Cook Islands, Aruba, Hong Kong, the US Virgin Isles all have āinternationalā teams. Didnāt Derek Stillie play for Sealand?
Not a sport, but competitive chess will have blind and deaf and disabled teams competing against ānationsā. Seniors chess will have city teams against countries. I donāt think it matters much. Golf has the Ryder Cup. Almost anything goes.
Of course the SNP is entitled to put forward candidates, and people are entitled to vote for them. But they donāt represent me, and I donāt consider they are entitled to speak for āScotlandā as a whole. The point I was making that most people in the UK didnāt get the government they wanted. Most people in Scotland didnāt get the government they wanted, either in London or Edinburgh. But inferring peopleās preferences from how they cast their vote is tricky. Iām sure a lot of people voted for their second choice, to keep someone else out.
Post Edited (Wed 20 May 18:59)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 20 May 18:54
Thanks for recognising Scotland as a nation and for the history of representation in international sport. I wish I'd never raised it. I'm not sure why Jim Sillars' view is relevant. He's just another punter with an opinion as far as I'm concerned.
I could say that Boris Johnson and, more specifically, Ian Murray don't represent me but, under the system for electing Westminster governments and MPs, they do. If Scotland was independent and a system of proportional representation continued to apply in voting for a Scottish Parliament then surely we would have a government more representative of the wishes of the Scottish electorate.
I fear you've fallen victim to that other virus that afflicts some of the Scottish population - 'the Cringe'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Malcolm Canmore
Date: Wed 20 May 19:05
To get back to the original thread, itās very easy to put the health of the nation first when Westminster is bailing you out on the Job Retention Scheme etc. If Scotland ever had to stand on its own two feet, I suspect the FM would be encouraging us back to work.
My dog eats meat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBA
Date: Wed 20 May 19:25
Quote:
Malcolm Canmore, Wed 20 May 19:05
To get back to the original thread, itās very easy to put the health of the nation first when Westminster is bailing you out on the Job Retention Scheme etc. If Scotland ever had to stand on its own two feet, I suspect the FM would be encouraging us back to work.
Care to explain why Scotland wouldn't have a similar scheme if independent?
Too wee, too poor argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Wed 20 May 20:19
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Wed 20 May 20:22
In terms of independence, you won't see it until someone can provide robust data to show the numbers will stack up. I'm not in the "too wee" party but independence is reliant on convincing older people that their pensions will be safe, for example. The argument that "these folks are dying out" is daft as we're an aging population so each year MORE people fall into the category of folks concerned about finances and pensions in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Wed 20 May 20:40
Quote:
Malcolm Canmore, Wed 20 May 19:05
To get back to the original thread, itās very easy to put the health of the nation first when Westminster is bailing you out on the Job Retention Scheme etc. If Scotland ever had to stand on its own two feet, I suspect the FM would be encouraging us back to work.
Ha ha, go look at Kelty Pars post at 13.10 on the no league reconstruction thread and then come back and explain to me what the nations with a similar population to us have that allows them to be independent but not us
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 21 May 17:38
Quote:
Malcolm Canmore, Wed 20 May 19:05
To get back to the original thread, itās very easy to put the health of the nation first when Westminster is bailing you out on the Job Retention Scheme etc. If Scotland ever had to stand on its own two feet, I suspect the FM would be encouraging us back to work.
In what way are we being bailed out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Thu 21 May 18:02
I'd imagine he's talking about the furlough scheme... That's being paid by the UK Gov... Not the scottish Gov.
Apparently (from. What I've read) the scottish Gov wouldn't be able to furlough everyone.
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 21 May 18:16
Do we know what proportion of the total cost of furloughing people in Scotland is vs the UK?
Do you have a link to what you've read please as I'd be interested to read it too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: widtink
Date: Thu 21 May 18:39
Just stuff I've read on the beeb website mate... Nothing specific sorry.
Apparently there's already been talks between WM and Scotland about what will the ramifications be if England end furlough and Scotland still need it.
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 21 May 19:10
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-8293773/How-Britain-pay-furlough-coronavirus-bill.html
That's a pretty decent summary as to the options that we face on how to fund the bill for Covid. We either raise money via debt or borrow it from our central bank that prints it itself.
Scotland gets charged a population % of UK Government borrowing and pays that back to the UK. If the cost to the UK for Scotland's share of the furlough bill was bigger than the % we will pay back under the population % then we are being subsidised.
In terms of what you've read if we want to keep the furlough scheme going when the UK stops it's more a case that the current borrowing mechanisms we voted to subject ourselves to prohibit us from borrowing what we might want to in this scenario rather than a lack of ability to pay it back.
To be fair the UK might agree to change those mechanisms but that's a whole different discussion and wouldn't play out well publicity wise for the Tories in England if they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 21 May 20:23
The UK isn't the only country operating a furlough scheme to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. How do smaller countries manage to finance it? What's unique about Scotland that would render it incapable of having its own scheme?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Thu 21 May 22:31
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 21 May 20:23
The UK isn't the only country operating a furlough scheme to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. How do smaller countries manage to finance it? What's unique about Scotland that would render it incapable of having its own scheme?
I'm still waiting on Malcolm Canmore coming back to me with an answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 21 May 22:56
One concern of mine is that being part of the Union engenders a kind of dependency culture in some Scots that makes them feel as if we couldn't achieve anything on our own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Fri 22 May 07:06
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Fri 22 May 08:12
Spend a couple of minutes watching PM Questions. Westminster is filled with idiots. The standards of our politicians is laughably poor. I've said it before but all these archaic practices in Westminster need abolished. Get out of Westminster to a modern building outside London with attached accommodation. No second home allowances. Let Westminster be a tourist attraction.
Also, as said before, Scotland needs to build a financial case for independence. A deficit isn't necessarily a big worry, but the size of it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 22 May 15:45
More nonsense
What, all of it? You have to admire my consistency.
Or you could always, you know, pick a point and debate it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower
Date: Fri 22 May 16:14
Now you are just spouting your unqualified opinions. Which you are entitled to, but you provide no evidence
So what point have I made for you do you think.
Someone posted saying how great NS was.
I replied, essentially saying I thought she was pretty average:
ā¢ Her answers were waffly and she didnāt allow follow-ups
ā¢ Despite electoral success she hadnāt achieved anything ābigā legislatively
ā¢ On Wednesday she announced a total of 3546 death due to Covid-19 in Scotland ā this is about 650 per million, which would be one of the worst rates in the world.
People basically jumped down my throat for criticising her.
I say this is how a cult would operate.
(In the meantime we have #thankyouNicola trending on Twitter. Does this sort of thing happen anywhere else? Where is the anti-government satire?)
Edited to sort italics and remove clapforNic reference as I think this may be nonsense
Post Edited (Fri 22 May 16:21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 22 May 16:52
"On Wednesday she announced a total of 3546 death due to Covid-19 in Scotland ā this is about 650 per million, which would be one of the worst rates in the world.:
I have to be honest I've not been impressed with the way most of Western Europe has handled this and that certainly includes our own Government.
The only reason I've not been more critical of NS is that I've sometimes found it quite difficult during the pandemic to determine where the bounds of responsibility lie for certain actions or decisions despite health care obviously being a devolved issue.
As an example, the PPE fiasco has been an omni shambles and although this has been led by Wesminster should Scotland have been decisive early on and said they would have been responsible for their own procurement? Were there scales of economy that we would benefit from being part of the Union's procurement process so it was best to remain in it to maximise the return on our spending?
What was going on with the advice around testing? NS has frequently said that the position across the UK including ours was guided by science but why was our science different from WHO advice which was test everyone? Was this UK scientific advice or was it our own or both? Should we have diverged from the rUK and gone all out on testing particularly where there were clusters of vulnerable people such as care homes?
Should we have asked for legal authority from Westminster to implement a lock down earlier and on our own terms? Would we have got it if we did?
If we had complete control of all our own legal powers and resources and we ended up with the body count we have then I absolutely would have been battering the SG on here.
NS is used to adversarial questioning far more than a lot of Tories are so that combined with the fact she's intelligent and had a lot of media training means she frequently comes across better than a lot of other UK politicians do in the daily briefings even when she's saying something I completely disagree with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Fri 22 May 17:07
I think we need to get away from this stupid cult reference.
Cult definition
a person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a particular group or section of society.
So let's see what cults we have on that basis:-
Any TV programme with a following
Any political party could also fall into that category
Actually anything that is popular with a large group of people.
Ok so maybe Nicola is a cult as she's quite popular with a large number of people. However, she is probably hated my many many more. So does that make her cultless (not even a word)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Fri 22 May 19:24
I heard someone call Boris Johnson a cult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 22 May 19:35
I think you're 75% of the way there :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Fri 22 May 22:56
On Wednesday she announced a total of 3546 death due to Covid-19 in Scotland ā this is about 650 per million, which would be one of the worst rates in the world.
And the majority caused by U.K. Gov decisions.
Same in Wales yet we never seem to see or hear the type of criticism aimed at Mark Drakeford as we do at NS and Scot Gov.
UntRuth getting prime time on GMB to spout barefaced lies regarding the deaths in care homes in Scotland compared to England...same as Carlaw.
The z number comparison has Scotland waaay below England which was the highest in Europe last time I looked......but donāt let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to deride Scot Gov.
Straight from the British Nationalist Handbook.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sat 23 May 00:12
So the majority of deaths are caused by UK government decisions but the Z number comparison (whatever that is) being well below England is down to the Scottish government?
I'm broadly a supporter of independence but the attitude of if something is bad it is Westminsters fault but if it's good it's thanks to Holyrood is a tad disappointing.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 23 May 10:44
So the Scottish Government had everything planned well in advance and were better decision makers than Westminster? If that's the case, then why are we only recruiting contact tracers* at the end of May? PHE started a couple of weeks ago.
Given the headstart, why have we been so slow to react? We've got thousands of NHS staff sat at home who could fill those roles but only now are they being asked. Why weren't they asked right at the start?
* We've always had contact tracers. These are simply new ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 23 May 10:56
All this 'whataboutery' is a bit tedious but didn't PHE start recruiting earlier because England came out of lockdown earlier? Anyway, the indications seem to be we'll have sufficient numbers of tracers to do the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 23 May 13:23
Weird how the whitabootery is only allowed when in favour of the SNP š You can start recruiting at any point. We've always had contact tracers in Scotland, just not enough to support a global pandemic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 23 May 13:56
I'm not clear what point you are making. Once the virus is under control you institute 'track and trace' of contacts which means you have to recruit more staff to supplement your core staff. What would be the point of recruiting them before they are needed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 23 May 22:20
The process is to note interest first. This could've been done at any point. It started last week.
No training materials have been produced. No detail is available on how it will work or whether personal devices or NHS devices will be used. This is back of a fag paper stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sat 23 May 22:22
Should be clear that the jobs are meant for NHS employees who are in non-essential roles.
Another question may be why we're not utilising call handlers in local authorities if they are available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Sat 23 May 23:29
Well Linda Bauld, Professor of Public Health at Edinburgh University, said on radio this morning that she was confident that everything was on schedule to have a system in place when it was needed. What does she know though, she's just an expert?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 24 May 03:13
Quote:
jake89, Sat 23 May 10:44
So the Scottish Government had everything planned well in advance and were better decision makers than Westminster? If that's the case, then why are we only recruiting contact tracers* at the end of May? PHE started a couple of weeks ago.
Given the headstart, why have we been so slow to react? We've got thousands of NHS staff sat at home who could fill those roles but only now are they being asked. Why weren't they asked right at the start?
* We've always had contact tracers. These are simply new ones.
Recruitment started on the 12th of May possibly as early as the 8th of May if the text my mate sent me applied to Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Sun 24 May 09:06
You mean you noted interest on 12/05? You can't apply in Scotland until tomorrow. You should receive a code by email if you noted interest.
This is all behind schedule. Medical professionals were querying in MARCH why work on this hadn't started. What we're seeing now is things being rushed through.
Edited to add that they've put the jobs are live now if people with a code wish to make an application.
Post Edited (Sun 24 May 09:13)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Malcolm Canmore
Date: Sun 24 May 18:38
Quote:
Tenruh, Thu 21 May 22:31
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 21 May 20:23
The UK isn't the only country operating a furlough scheme to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. How do smaller countries manage to finance it? What's unique about Scotland that would render it incapable of having its own scheme?
I'm still waiting on Malcolm Canmore coming back to me with an answer.
Smaller countries do have furlough schemes, but not all financing it to the same level as UK.
Comparisons are obviously very difficult, as we are looking at apples and pears. France covering up to 70% of wages, Germany 67%, UK 80%.
Uk committing Ā£350bn, (before the latest extension), France Ā£96bn, Switzerland Ā£35bn, Canada Ā£64bn.
As percentages of GDP, UK 16%, France 4.4%, Switzerland 6%, Canada 4.6%, USA 11.1%.
Scotland could undoubtedly have its own scheme, but who knows at what price and exactly how it would be financed. The fact is, however, that Scotlandās employers are being funded by a UK scheme, making it easy to run lockdown rules for longer.
My dog eats meat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 24 May 20:47
Quote:
jake89, Sun 24 May 09:06
You mean you noted interest on 12/05? You can't apply in Scotland until tomorrow. You should receive a code by email if you noted interest.
This is all behind schedule. Medical professionals were querying in MARCH why work on this hadn't started. What we're seeing now is things being rushed through.
Edited to add that they've put the jobs are live now if people with a code wish to make an application.
https://hijobs.net/job/151768/join-scotlands-new-covid19-contact-tracing-team
No the job listing here is gone but it was for applications on the 12th and I also had a text before that on the 8th from a mate whose company were awarded part of the running of the system and they had been asked to start recruiting friends and family.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 24 May 21:03
Start recruiting friends and family?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Sun 24 May 21:14
Yep. I dont know if this was maybe for the wider UK track and trace project vs ours but as long as you could work 20 hours a week and pass a disclosure check you would be considered. It was a zero hour contract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Mon 25 May 05:50
Pity track and trace wasn't in place in January then we possibly wouldn't be where we are now
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Mon 25 May 05:56
Quote:
Malcolm Canmore, Sun 24 May 18:38
Quote:
Tenruh, Thu 21 May 22:31
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 21 May 20:23
The UK isn't the only country operating a furlough scheme to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. How do smaller countries manage to finance it? What's unique about Scotland that would render it incapable of having its own scheme?
I'm still waiting on Malcolm Canmore coming back to me with an answer.
Smaller countries do have furlough schemes, but not all financing it to the same level as UK.
Comparisons are obviously very difficult, as we are looking at apples and pears. France covering up to 70% of wages, Germany 67%, UK 80%.
Uk committing Ā£350bn, (before the latest extension), France Ā£96bn, Switzerland Ā£35bn, Canada Ā£64bn.
As percentages of GDP, UK 16%, France 4.4%, Switzerland 6%, Canada 4.6%, USA 11.1%.
Scotland could undoubtedly have its own scheme, but who knows at what price and exactly how it would be financed. The fact is, however, that Scotlandās employers are being funded by a UK scheme, making it easy to run lockdown rules for longer.
Doesn't make sense that last paragraph, you don't know what Scotland would have done if independent, so how can you say the UK could run lockdown rules for longer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 25 May 08:10
Quote:
Tenruh, Mon 25 May 05:50
Pity track and trace wasn't in place in January then we possibly wouldn't be where we are now
Anyone whose read my posts on the corona virus threads will know I think we've acted far too slowly too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 25 May 08:35
LPF, Scotland started recruiting officially on Friday. Anything on the 12th was to note interest. Scotland is also only accepting those with a health background or training to work in the health profession as far as I'm aware.
If you noted interest you should have a code to use in the application portal. It officially launches today but the job descriptions have been up since Friday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Mon 25 May 14:24
Yeah I've had a look and I think my mates one is for a call handler for the UK
Apologies for the confusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 25 May 17:44
No worries. The whole process is confusing. I know people who have "applied"...but have really noted an interest. I can only assume they are vetting the notes of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 09:26
82% of Scots think Nicola Sturgeon has done a good job of handling the coronavirus crisis according to the latest poll. That's some cult!
30% think Boris Johnson has done a good job and that was before the Dominic Cummings saga unfolded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 26 May 09:30
Lets face it though neither have done a very good job handling this but Sturgeon is a more stylish and sophisticated communicator.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 10:40
Maybe folk like leaders who lead and don't shirk responsibility whether they get all decisions right or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Tue 26 May 10:45
What has Sturgeon (really trying hard not to call her Nicola) admitted to getting wrong?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Tue 26 May 10:59
She has acknowledged that it is inevitable in a constantly-moving scenario such as this crisis that she and her government will have made mistakes and is quite prepared to face the consequences of any review of the crisis which is carried out once it's over. Hindsight always has 20/20 vision so I'm sure she will get plenty of criticism. If she does have thoughts just now of specific things she got wrong I'm not sure admitting them in public would be a good idea. It would probably create a huge distraction to the job in hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 26 May 11:07
I like Nicola she is head and shoulders above any of the Marx Brothers who are trying to run the UK
Any time she has been confronted with a blame she has accepted it to be her ultimate responsibility
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert
Date: Tue 26 May 11:19
Could be heading for a new crisis by the end of this week, although Fife is reducing infection rates Lothian figures are starting to rise.
English health boards infections are also increasing, along with the crowds on the beaches this weekend, a spike will come in 14 days.
That's before the Dominic Cummings fiasco affecting opinions!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 26 May 11:27
I don't think she has. She was questioned on why they had stopped testing at a time when the WHO were advising test, test, test and she said they had been "guided by Science" despite other counties having huge succes in controlling the virus having implemented testing track and trace and decent subsequent quarantine measures.
There was no explanation as to what the difference in scientific opinion was which was probably to stop it being dismissed as guff advice.
We've obvioulsy also had huge issues in care homes and I havent heard her say that the large numbers of deaths in those homes are the result of poor preparation and management by the SG or UK Government.
As I said earlier in this chain the only reason I havent been more critical is there are quite a few areas where there's an overlap between UK responsibility and SG responsibility and it's not always entirely clear who is more to blame.
Ultimately MCTs is right, Scotland's per capita deaths is very high relative to the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 26 May 13:53
https://talkingupscotlandtwo.com/2020/05/26/stunning-level-of-approval-for-scottish-governments-covid-response-in-new-poll-analysed-to-insult-your-intelligence/
Scotland per capita death rate is indeed high, ( mainly because the U.K. gov allowed thousands to fly in unchecked )but.......look at the z number which is regarded as the most accurate way to compare each countries death rate and Scotland compares far better.
Englandās figures are terrible which ever way you look at them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tenruh
Date: Tue 26 May 14:23
Is there any break down for the % of deaths in the private and public sector care homes
Post Edited (Tue 26 May 14:26)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 26 May 16:38
"mainly because the U.K. gov allowed thousands to fly in unchecked"
I dont know if we know enough to say it was the main reason but it's certainly an example of the kind of power the SG lacks and something I would have expected them to have used if we were an independent country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Tue 26 May 19:51
Quote :-
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Tue 26 May 13:53
Scotland per capita death rate is indeed high, ( mainly because the U.K. gov allowed thousands to fly in unchecked )but.......look at the z number which is regarded as the most accurate way to compare each countries death rate and Scotland compares far better.
Englandās figures are terrible which ever way you look at them.
Correct desparado and are now being falsified to hide the correct figure
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Tue 26 May 20:35
Not in favour of "blame Westminster". It's not like we were calling to close the borders and they were saying no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Tue 26 May 20:48
To be fair we dont know what was said behind closed doors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
