RayC

22 hours ago, crobe said:

 

During this time the Bank of Scotland would start to issue government bonds to cover the agreed proportion of UK debt and ongoing spending pending tax receipts - the idea that Scotland would immediately be in default is a non-starter and just fear-propaganda by unionists.

 

 

Not sure if this link will work but there was an interesting article in the FT 5 days ago about the financial side of independence.https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/2f298c24-36e1-48c3-b401-0ac0066c18b4

16 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

This is where I can't get my head around the data.

 

So what makes one country's case/fatality rate higher than another?

 

From my previous post I just can't get my head around why there is such a wide distribution in case/fatalities.

 

I thought maybe if you took the top few, UK, Italy, Belgium, France and The Netherlands it could possibly be attributed to a generally older population, but then you get Mexico!

 

Now again many variables. Mexico has a generally younger population but with an awful health care system.

 

So how to normalize all this is a mystery to me

I think that age profile explains a lot (notwithstanding your comment re Mexico).  This is just (more) conjecture and has no statistical validity, but some contributory factors might be the following:

1) Different methods of recording data. For example, in Belgium ALL deaths in care homes are (were?) recorded as COVID related. As care home deaths account for +/-50% of total, it's possible the fatality figure is inflated.

2) Italy: First country in Europe to be widely affected. Virus was able to spread widely until measures enacted, therefore greater viral load? Also maybe strain was stronger in Italy vis-a-vis the rest of Europe? (Generally accepted that as viruses mutate, they become less potent).

3) The Netherlands: Very limited restrictions, therefore virus able to spread more easily. Greater viral load?

4) The UK: Late to enact restrictions. High population density (especially in cities) enabling virus to spread more easily. Therefore, greater viral load?

5) France: Similar to UK although restrictions enacted more quickly. 

As I say, all just conjecture on my part.

The move towards remote working was already well under way and the COVID crisis has quickened the pace. While there are many positives in such a move, it is not all good news. As the article says 1 in 4 businesses are in danger of failing, a proportion of which is no doubt linked to the relative lack of workers.

If this transition in working arrangements is not managed correctly, there is a real risk that our city centres will become wastelands.

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Not true, a xenophobe would hate all foreigners, I only hate the Germans and Dutch so not a xenophobe.

Glad to see you're mellowing. From your previous post: "Essentially we hate the EU and want to see them all in ruins."

Hope for you yet maybe?

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Go back to Old Kent Road but do pass GO and the OP will tell you what the problem is.

I am familiar with monopoly but have no idea how it is relevant here.

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

No Deal looking increasingly likely. Given that the EU are making completely unreasonable demands that have never before been part of a trade deal the EU has made with other non EU countries, I think that we can conclude they are not acting in good faith. Based on this failure on the part of the EU, I sincerely hope we also renege on most of the 39 Billion payment laid out in the same agreement.

 

From the withdrawal agreement.

 

 

 

Also..

A false argument. Firstly, all trade deals are different. Secondly, "unreasonable demands" is subjective. Thirdly, the fact that any 'conditions' for negotiations may be new is irrelevant. 

So no, we can logically conclude that the EU is acting in good faith.

There is no failure (in this context) on the part of the EU and therefore there is no justification for the UK to renege on the terms of the agreement.

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The chaos is produced by the EU continuing to try to impose their "requirements" on the UK but not imposing them on anyone else.

Why is the EU under any obligation not to impose "requirements"? To use an football analogy. Man City may be perfectly happy to sell players to, say, Wolves but unwilling to sell players to Liverpool. What's the problem?

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

IF remain had won there wouldn't be a Brexit and IF we'd never joined there wouldn't be a Brexit either. I still blame Heath & Co.

I really struggle to understand your position. It's clear that you don't want membership of the EU, but what do you want? On what terms should the UK deal with Europe and the rest of the world? (Can you avoid simply stating as a sovereign nation please).

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

My point is that this 'agreement' was actually a demonstration of disagreement between member states which lasted over several days and that the EU failed to achieve its aim.

Show me any club of 27 members who unanimously agree on every (most?) issue(s)? The EU did achieve its aim, which was to agree a budget.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I remember that a 'Canada' deal was tabled by the EU but the details were never revealed. May blew it off anyway because, as a not-so closet remainer, she wanted to tie us even closer to the EU post Brexit. May's fault.

As above, I struggle to understand what you are asking for. It appears that you want the EU to table the same deal that has been agreed with Canada in order for the UK to be able to then reject it.

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

The truth of the matter is that the chaotic nature of the whole Brexit process exposes the very self-serving structure and makeup of the EU, as it has mutated to be today. It is a snarled rats maze, showing far more political ambition than economic sense; everyone can see that now, if they care to open their eyes, of course.

Having admitted that both sides will suffer economically as a result of Brexit, I'd love to know what is your definition of the phrase "economic sense"?

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

And the two of us obviously disagree on the issue of what true sovereignty actually is.

I'd phrase it differently by questioning what it means in practice but, yes probably the closest to agreement that we're likely to get.

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

You seem to assume that leavers have a "casual disregard" for the possible economic effects. Not true but carry on with your blame game

By your own admission, both sides will suffer economically as a result of Brexit. If remain had won, there wouldn't be a Brexit. Who else is responsible, other than leavers then?

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

There is an agreement on the EU budget only because it was short of the target total. 

And your point is what? That this is a failure? The Commission put forward a proposed budget; the member states analysed and discussed it, and then came back with their conclusions. Seems like a perfectly sensible process to me.

By your line of argument, you will presumably judge the UK government's Brexit negotiations a failure unless they come back with full unconditional access to the single market?

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

I read your links. Herr Lang seems to echo the EU rhetoric quite closely but ignores several conditions being set by the EU that are not applied to Canada or other third countries with FTAs. Maybe he's after a commission job?

 

And maybe Herr Lang is happy being Head of the leading trade body in Europe's biggest economy?

Don't you remember that a 'Canada' deal was tabled by the EU, and rejected by the UK a couple of years ago? Who's fault is it that the offer wasn't taken up? There is no obligation on the EU to make any offer open-ended.

The truth of the matter is that the chaotic nature of the whole Brexit process is down to the UK government or, more specifically, the Tory party. Successive leaders have continuously put their own personal and party ambitions before those of the country and this is the result.

I very much doubt that a Corbyn government would have made a stellar success of things, but it's difficult to envisage how such a government could have done much worse.

Just our luck to have such woeful politicians at a time when we need the best.

An audio file outlining the UK's Brexit negotiating position has fallen into my hands. Thought that I would share it with you.

https://youtu.be/i2KLyBapfTc

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Not true, I am afraid. 

 

Do I need a TV Licence to watch subscription services like Netflix, Amazon or Now TV?

You don’t need a TV Licence if you only ever use these services to watch on demand or catch up programmes except if you’re watching BBC programmes on iPlayer.

 

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

 

I stand (partially) corrected. You conveniently omit to mention that a licence is needed to watch ITV, C4, C5 and the countless other channels. Still, I'm sure these principled people wouldn't dream of doing so.

Might also have been useful if you had published the rest of the article for completeness:

9 hours ago, sawadee1947 said:

Enjoy your days with that sex monster Andrew and Little Britain... ????

About this sex monster Andrew .... Don't suppose we are talking about a female? (Asking for a friend!)

3 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

This will scare the carp out of the French fishermen.    

 

If you can think of a better fish pun .. let minnow   

No more please. I surrender ????️ (In fairness, it's not bad????)

48 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

I never said they were watching the BBC - I said that Scotland had the highest number of households without a licence. It is you who has tried and convicted them. 

And you therefore contend that amongst all these highly principled individuals not one is taking a sneaky peak at 'Blue Planet', 'Line of Duty', "Peaky Binders', etc?

Besides which, it is also necessary to buy a licence to watch ITV, Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc. Whether it should be is another matter but I doubt that anyone's principles extend to withholding their licence fee as a show of support for Amazon, etc.

Basically, if you own a telly in the UK, buy a licence.

48 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Imagine for a second that the national news in the USA was provided by Fox news and you had to pay for it by law.

Would you be happy with that?

No but then again I wouldn't watch it.

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

And it still has very good content and makes some groundbreaking television, but its impartiality has been shredded and for that I cannot forgive it. I would support its abolition now. 

So individuals are to be lauded for taking a principled stand against the unionist propaganda peddled by the BBC, but said individuals are not principled enough to miss their favourite BBC programmes?

That's a pretty good definition of a freeloader in my book.