The Scottish Politics Thread

[Biffer]

For gods sake don’t engage that cunt on here or I’ll block you as well.

[Tichtheid]

For gods sake don’t engage that cunt on here or I’ll block you as well.

Fair enough, I was going to suggest we take it outside.

Well, to another thread.

[Bimbowomxn]

For gods sake don’t engage that cunt on here or I’ll block you as well.

You’re the font of enlightenment.....

[tc27]

- Adopting elimination as a strategy is about striving to get community transmission as low as possible or even zero. Some countries have managed it and some are closer to achieving it than others. If not the correct strategy then what is the right one? Herd immunity? Lock downs?

I am not claiming elimination is not desirable but it looks like its simply not deliverable in this part of the world - even Germany seems to have being unable to achieve this. Talking about elimination whilst plainly not achieving it is not in itself a virtue. Herd immunity is not a moral choice so we are left with lock-downs by elimination.

Control over Borders was a reference to the UK, hence my comment about a lack of agreement across the UK to pursue this. There are no borders in the UK - apart from the one down the Irish Sea but thats another thread! I made no reference to the Scotland - England 'border' and was actually thinking about the airports and ports. The lack of controls around testing and track and trace of folk coming from and going to European hotspots and others world wide was a major failing and we know that recent testing has shown that a strain originating from Spain has been found across the NW of England. We needed to control the UK borders and yes limit travel within the UK - as the Welsh, NI and Scotland authorities indicated some time ago and is now in place in England as part of their own lockdown. Devolved authorities have no control over Border control so even if they wanted to limit entry or put in place testing etc at airports and ports from non UK travel they can't really do it. The UK Gov moved far too slow on this agenda.

I totally agree that international borders were closed far too late. I am not totally sure if the devolved admins could infact close airports and other travel hubs - I think they would infact have the power to do this under health and transport powers - nor do I recall any of the devolved leaders pressing for border closures (could be corrected on this). But that does not absolve the UK government of the responsibility for not doing this earlier. To me this was the biggest failure in the Government's entire approach last spring.

I don't disagree that parts of England and Wales and NI have achieved very low levels of transmission and this is in part down to geography but it is a fact that numbers of cases per 100,000 in parts of England are significantly higher than in the worst hotspots in Scotland, in some cases 3 times higher. Check the official UK Gov website for the detail.

This is true but its worth bearing in mind that England has in density/population terms multiple versions of the central belt - there were more chances for the disease to spread in large urban populations and more chances for for the policy response to be less effective or just less fortunate.

Elimination strategy is about driving down community transmission to as low as possible or even zero if possible. It is a legitimate strategy to pursue even if it is difficult to achieve. I would be interested in what you think is a better strategy, as I asked before is it herd immunity you are suggesting? Bouncing in and out of lock downs?

I agree its a legitimate strategy to pursue.

However in the case of Scotland I think the government wants the credit for pursing and talking a strategy that it could not materially achieve (blaming the failure on others). Obviously this plays well politically but is not really useful outside of that.

Again you leap to assuming I am talking about England - Scotland borders! I would suggest we need far stringent borders across the UK including airports and ports and have a far more stringent requirement for testing and isolating for anyone who has legitimate reason for coming into the UK. The NZ experience of inward transmission was a good example of the risks and how to manage it. We do however need and indeed have implemented control over travel and in particular between regions in the UK that have different rates of transmission. At the moment I am restricted to travelling only 5 miles from my household. Similar restrictions are in place across England. I don't really understand your preoccupation about the Scotland - England border - if I lived in the Cornwall or Devon then I would be wanting limitations in place for folk travelling from the NW. I think I heard a Tory MP say this in Commons yesterday!

I apologies for the inference - this is a point I think others have made but it wasn't fair to assign that view to you. Totally agree travel should be based on risk not national borders within the UK

You obviously don't understand how the test and trace system is organised across the UK and in Scotland and the differences between each of the testing pillars for example. I can't be arsed explaining it to you but essentially Pillar 2 is run by UK Gov and has been subcontracted by them to Deliottes and other sub contractors to manage and oversee including testing prioritisation etc. We have brought track and protect into local Health boards in Scotland but this is in part dependant upon the turnaround times of the Pillar 2 system and the speedy transfer of data on positive tests into their Track and Protect Teams and this aint working!

To be clear is this a reference to this story?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54590420

Going to admit I am not particularity well read on the testing system but as far as I can tell:

1. The UK government delivers most of the testing capability in Scotland
2. Scotland is still testing less per head than in England (which is odd if your claiming your following a elimination strategy.
3. The specific complaint made about LH2 tests was 'categorically denied'.
4. The FM seems to row back on the complaint anyway meaning it may well not be true.
5. It specially refers to one days worth of testing so even if true the amount of blame assigned is limited.

Scotland called for border controls to be implemented as soon as it became apparent there was transmission from europe and elsewhere. We still cant control the borders. The SG and other devolved countries have been calling on a flexible furlough for about 6 weeks now, we just got it.

Its not flexible its a blanket furlough system through to March - but yes.

We have asked for the Pillar 2 testing elements to be controlled by NHS in Scotland but failed and are in process of having to build 3 new labs in Scotland as a consequence.

Arguably not any more beneficial to disrupt the lab system and organisation/funding just to accommodate this. As I said above the SG is testing less per head than the rest of the UK so building new labs is something they should be expected to do.

The UK does not provide billions of funding to Scotland! Remember the UK is made up of Scotland, England, NI and Wales all of whom contribute to the Treasury and get a share back, in Scottish terms this is based on the Barnett formula.

The point was I think the government has not being shy about spending vast amounts of money on trying to mitigate the consequences of CV19...one part of the response that deserves qualified praise IMO.

Just listened to the Blonde Bumblecunt say live on tv that his strategy is 'to lock down now so we can all have as normal a Christmas as possible!'. That seems to be it from what I have heard from his 'address to the nation'.

Its waffle from the over promoted after dinner speaker. But at least he doesn't falsely claim he almost eliminated the virus only for it to be re-introduced by outsiders.

Have a listen to Devi Sridhar and her take on why Scotland and the UK should adopt an elimination strategy and what is required to avoid the yo-yo'ing in and out of lock downs. Although based in University of Edinburgh she is a Rhodes Scholar and has also worked in Oxford an uni of Miami. She is a Professor in PH and knows her stuff - you might learn something?

Thanks - I have in fact read and listened to her a few times.

I do not doubt her qualifications are impeccable but she made a number of predictions and some (in my view) quite prejudicial claims about the effectiveness of the response in Scotland. On the whole the victory lap she took for Scotland response turned out to be premature and based on incorrect assumptions.

Of course other experts views were available even back in June (even if they were not quite as supportive of the narrative of Sturgeon's brilliance).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53192024

Sir Ian said that while Scotland was doing comparatively well, the country could not be "excessively optimistic about how much control we have over this disease".

He said: "We don't fully understand the dynamics of it, and we don't fully understand why Scotland is doing better than other parts of the country.

"We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that because we've been effective, that we know about this disease.

"And we could get caught out next time if we're not careful - and there will be a next time, especially in the winter."

[tc27]

Alyn Smith getting Brillo-ed



If nothing else he deserves it for doing all his video calls in front of a wall of newspaper clippings about himself.

[dpedin]

- Adopting elimination as a strategy is about striving to get community transmission as low as possible or even zero. Some countries have managed it and some are closer to achieving it than others. If not the correct strategy then what is the right one? Herd immunity? Lock downs?

I am not claiming elimination is not desirable but it looks like its simply not deliverable in this part of the world - even Germany seems to have being unable to achieve this. Talking about elimination whilst plainly not achieving it is not in itself a virtue. Herd immunity is not a moral choice so we are left with lock-downs by elimination.

Lock downs are a sign of failure to control the virus!

Control over Borders was a reference to the UK, hence my comment about a lack of agreement across the UK to pursue this. There are no borders in the UK - apart from the one down the Irish Sea but thats another thread! I made no reference to the Scotland - England 'border' and was actually thinking about the airports and ports. The lack of controls around testing and track and trace of folk coming from and going to European hotspots and others world wide was a major failing and we know that recent testing has shown that a strain originating from Spain has been found across the NW of England. We needed to control the UK borders and yes limit travel within the UK - as the Welsh, NI and Scotland authorities indicated some time ago and is now in place in England as part of their own lockdown. Devolved authorities have no control over Border control so even if they wanted to limit entry or put in place testing etc at airports and ports from non UK travel they can't really do it. The UK Gov moved far too slow on this agenda.

I totally agree that international borders were closed far too late. I am not totally sure if the devolved admins could infact close airports and other travel hubs - I think they would infact have the power to do this under health and transport powers - nor do I recall any of the devolved leaders pressing for border closures (could be corrected on this). But that does not absolve the UK government of the responsibility for not doing this earlier. To me this was the biggest failure in the Government's entire approach last spring.

Border control is not a devolved matter, it remains within the control of the UK Gov - Priti Patel I think?

I don't disagree that parts of England and Wales and NI have achieved very low levels of transmission and this is in part down to geography but it is a fact that numbers of cases per 100,000 in parts of England are significantly higher than in the worst hotspots in Scotland, in some cases 3 times higher. Check the official UK Gov website for the detail.

This is true but its worth bearing in mind that England has in density/population terms multiple versions of the central belt - there were more chances for the disease to spread in large urban populations and more chances for for the policy response to be less effective or just less fortunate.

Research has shown that pop density in itself is not a cause for high rates of transmission. I quoted this research in a tweet weeks ago.

Elimination strategy is about driving down community transmission to as low as possible or even zero if possible. It is a legitimate strategy to pursue even if it is difficult to achieve. I would be interested in what you think is a better strategy, as I asked before is it herd immunity you are suggesting? Bouncing in and out of lock downs?

I agree its a legitimate strategy to pursue.

However in the case of Scotland I think the government wants the credit for pursing and talking a strategy that it could not materially achieve (blaming the failure on others). Obviously this plays well politically but is not really useful outside of that.

Subjective and I think we just need to agree to disagree

Again you leap to assuming I am talking about England - Scotland borders! I would suggest we need far stringent borders across the UK including airports and ports and have a far more stringent requirement for testing and isolating for anyone who has legitimate reason for coming into the UK. The NZ experience of inward transmission was a good example of the risks and how to manage it. We do however need and indeed have implemented control over travel and in particular between regions in the UK that have different rates of transmission. At the moment I am restricted to travelling only 5 miles from my household. Similar restrictions are in place across England. I don't really understand your preoccupation about the Scotland - England border - if I lived in the Cornwall or Devon then I would be wanting limitations in place for folk travelling from the NW. I think I heard a Tory MP say this in Commons yesterday!

I apologies for the inference - this is a point I think others have made but it wasn't fair to assign that view to you. Totally agree travel should be based on risk not national borders within the UK

Accepted and agreed

You obviously don't understand how the test and trace system is organised across the UK and in Scotland and the differences between each of the testing pillars for example. I can't be arsed explaining it to you but essentially Pillar 2 is run by UK Gov and has been subcontracted by them to Deliottes and other sub contractors to manage and oversee including testing prioritisation etc. We have brought track and protect into local Health boards in Scotland but this is in part dependant upon the turnaround times of the Pillar 2 system and the speedy transfer of data on positive tests into their Track and Protect Teams and this aint working!

To be clear is this a reference to this story?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-54590420

Going to admit I am not particularity well read on the testing system but as far as I can tell:

1. The UK government delivers most of the testing capability in Scotland
2. Scotland is still testing less per head than in England (which is odd if your claiming your following a elimination strategy.
3. The specific complaint made about LH2 tests was 'categorically denied'.
4. The FM seems to row back on the complaint anyway meaning it may well not be true.
5. It specially refers to one days worth of testing so even if true the amount of blame assigned is limited.

Wee Nic just decided it wasn't a fight worth having in public! It is not one days of testing, believe me I know that to be the case. There are ongoing problems with turnaround times and data reporting. Its why Scotland is building three new labs at breakneck speed.

Scotland called for border controls to be implemented as soon as it became apparent there was transmission from europe and elsewhere. We still cant control the borders. The SG and other devolved countries have been calling on a flexible furlough for about 6 weeks now, we just got it.

Its not flexible its a blanket furlough system through to March - but yes.

Agreed

We have asked for the Pillar 2 testing elements to be controlled by NHS in Scotland but failed and are in process of having to build 3 new labs in Scotland as a consequence.

Arguably not any more beneficial to disrupt the lab system and organisation/funding just to accommodate this. As I said above the SG is testing less per head than the rest of the UK so building new labs is something they should be expected to do.

We are testing less because we have less community transmission and folk are not developing symptoms etc at the rate they are in parts of England. IF you have 3 times the rate of infection per 100,000 in the NW then you would expect testing numbers of these folk and close contacts to be much higher. However as we move to wider asymptomatic testing then we will need more lab capacity.

The UK does not provide billions of funding to Scotland! Remember the UK is made up of Scotland, England, NI and Wales all of whom contribute to the Treasury and get a share back, in Scottish terms this is based on the Barnett formula.

The point was I think the government has not being shy about spending vast amounts of money on trying to mitigate the consequences of CV19...one part of the response that deserves qualified praise IMO.

No option IMO!

Just listened to the Blonde Bumblecunt say live on tv that his strategy is 'to lock down now so we can all have as normal a Christmas as possible!'. That seems to be it from what I have heard from his 'address to the nation'.

Its waffle from the over promoted after dinner speaker. But at least he doesn't falsely claim he almost eliminated the virus only for it to be re-introduced by outsiders.

I am not sure what this is referring to?

Have a listen to Devi Sridhar and her take on why Scotland and the UK should adopt an elimination strategy and what is required to avoid the yo-yo'ing in and out of lock downs. Although based in University of Edinburgh she is a Rhodes Scholar and has also worked in Oxford an uni of Miami. She is a Professor in PH and knows her stuff - you might learn something?

Thanks - I have in fact read and listened to her a few times.

I do not doubt her qualifications are impeccable but she made a number of predictions and some (in my view) quite prejudicial claims about the effectiveness of the response in Scotland. On the whole the victory lap she took for Scotland response turned out to be premature and based on incorrect assumptions.

Of course other experts views were available even back in June (even if they were not quite as supportive of the narrative of Sturgeon's brilliance).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53192024

Sir Ian said that while Scotland was doing comparatively well, the country could not be "excessively optimistic about how much control we have over this disease".

He said: "We don't fully understand the dynamics of it, and we don't fully understand why Scotland is doing better than other parts of the country.

"We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that because we've been effective, that we know about this disease.

"And we could get caught out next time if we're not careful - and there will be a next time, especially in the winter."

I think this is a bit fallacious? Everyone including Sridhar acknowledged there would be a 2nd wave in the autumn/winter. The aim the elimination strategy was to drive rates down as low as possible during the summer months in order to get testing and Track and Protect in place and up and running properly, to ensure that when the inevitable winter 2nd wave came along it could be managed and contained to levels low enough to avoid the overloading of the NHS and to provide space for all other NHS workforce to be resumed and protected. Broadly speaking we are holding our own - the 2nd peak seems to be levelling off, Scotland TaP system is achieving far higher rates of contact than the Serco system down south and we are at about 70% of normal NHS activity again. We will struggle to achieve higher than 70% because of limitations to activity i.e. social distancing, PPE coming on and off, etc. Apart from the known hotspots like Lanarkshire the NHS is keeping its head above water. Oh - there will be a 3rd wave around Feb/March time and hospitals will be very stretched to Easter. Lets not mix up elimination and eradication strategies.

Sorry for the use of bold font - technical ignorance on my part!

[Bimbowomxn]

The aim the elimination strategy was to drive rates down as low as possible during the summer months in order to get testing and Track and Protect in place and up and running properly, to ensure that when the inevitable winter 2nd wave came along

The aim wasn’t to eliminate ?

Sort of a sociologists elimination?

completely remove or get rid of (something).

Completely different to

destroy completely; put an end to.

[Caley_Red]

Sturgeon and SNP ban child chastisement, not in favour of it myself but plays again to the theme of the state's continued overreach into people's lives.

Country cuts a very strange figure these days, part bungled bien pensant legislation across a number of areas and resembling the old DDR in others. If they succeed in bringing in the anti-free speech bill then I will, for the first time, be glad to have emigrated. If this illiberal authoritarianism (from the land of Hume and Smith) is what an independent Scotland looks like then count me out, won't just be the economy that's a proverbial show, civic life will see a permanent diminishing of rights.

[Sandstorm]

Sturgeon and SNP ban child chastisement, not in favour of it myself but plays again to the theme of the state's continued overreach into people's lives.

Country cuts a very strange figure these days, part bungled bien pensant legislation across a number of areas and resembling the old DDR in others. If they succeed in bringing in the anti-free speech bill then I will, for the first time, be glad to have emigrated. If this illiberal authoritarianism (from the land of Hume and Smith) is what an independent Scotland looks like then count me out, won't just be the economy that's a proverbial show, civic life will see a permanent diminishing of rights.

How much will Scotland lose every year when Fringe is banned?

[Dogbert]

What do these bunch of left wing Trots know

TWO-thirds of business leaders north of the Border believe the Scottish Government is handling the coronavirus crisis better than the Boris Johnson administration

IoD Scotland chairman Aidan O’Carroll said: “The majority of delegates are of the opinion that overall to date the Covid-19 pandemic has been better handled by the Scottish Government rather than that of the national government. While the decisions made at the highest levels have no doubt been incredibly difficult to make, the local nuances are so important – particularly for directors who are looking for clear and consistent guidance and support to move forward.

“However, rather unsurprisingly, it has also created an environment where the independence debate has gathered strength. This is something IoD Scotland will continue to monitor closely and ensure that business leaders’ voices are heard throughout any movement towards a future referendum.”

IoD members include chief executives of large corporations as well as entrepreneurs and directors of public sector bodies, charities and start-up companies. The organisation’s membership is drawn from a broad range of sectors.

The polling also showed only 30.3% of business leaders view themselves as “very prepared” for Brexit. Meanwhile, 62.1% of the 66 respondents for this question say they are “somewhat prepared”. And 7.6% consider themselves “not prepared at all”.

[Northern Lights]

What do these bunch of left wing Trots know

TWO-thirds of business leaders north of the Border believe the Scottish Government is handling the coronavirus crisis better than the Boris Johnson administration

IoD Scotland chairman Aidan O’Carroll said: “The majority of delegates are of the opinion that overall to date the Covid-19 pandemic has been better handled by the Scottish Government rather than that of the national government. While the decisions made at the highest levels have no doubt been incredibly difficult to make, the local nuances are so important – particularly for directors who are looking for clear and consistent guidance and support to move forward.

“However, rather unsurprisingly, it has also created an environment where the independence debate has gathered strength. This is something IoD Scotland will continue to monitor closely and ensure that business leaders’ voices are heard throughout any movement towards a future referendum.”

IoD members include chief executives of large corporations as well as entrepreneurs and directors of public sector bodies, charities and start-up companies. The organisation’s membership is drawn from a broad range of sectors.

The polling also showed only 30.3% of business leaders view themselves as “very prepared” for Brexit. Meanwhile, 62.1% of the 66 respondents for this question say they are “somewhat prepared”. And 7.6% consider themselves “not prepared at all”.

Hate to break it to you but the SG is held in very low esteem by the business community, independence isn’t even on the radar as a serious concern to anyone at the moment as the big issues are COVID and Brexit.

[Caley_Red]

Sturgeon and SNP ban child chastisement, not in favour of it myself but plays again to the theme of the state's continued overreach into people's lives.

Country cuts a very strange figure these days, part bungled bien pensant legislation across a number of areas and resembling the old DDR in others. If they succeed in bringing in the anti-free speech bill then I will, for the first time, be glad to have emigrated. If this illiberal authoritarianism (from the land of Hume and Smith) is what an independent Scotland looks like then count me out, won't just be the economy that's a proverbial show, civic life will see a permanent diminishing of rights.

How much will Scotland lose every year when Fringe is banned?

Far more than any sum of sterling: the country would be a laughing stock and the anti free speech laws would claim its first victims of the Fringe on the first subsequent edition, someone's joke is bound to invite accusations of 'stirring up hatred'.
The resulting effect (intended or otherwise) will strangle comedy therefore ending the fringe as we know it.

[Tichtheid]

The hitting children thing, Scotland becomes the first of the UK countries to ban it, Wales is due to follow suit shortly. We join some 58 (?) countries where children have the same rights as adults in respect to the right to not having to suffer physical assault.

Anyone opposed to this needs to wake up, this isn't Dickensian times anymore.

The IoD have a positive outlook on the SG's handling of the epidemic and partisan blindness elicits the expected knee-jerk response, nothing new there, there are salves available for the bruises sustained from smacking the knee on the underside of one's desk from just such a reaction.

The Hate Crime Bill (its proper title) has already been amended, the Fringe won't be affected, if someone incites racial hatred or sectarian violence or any kind of hate against a particular group from the stage they will face prosecution, the words "likely to" (incite hatred) have been taken out of the bill (as of September anyway), that puts a far greater onus on the prosecution to prove someone was trying to incite violence, hatred or discrimination due to race, sexuality, gender, nationality etc

This isn't going to be easy, there will be mistakes along the way, but we have to take the road towards everyone feeling safe, not just one section of the community - up 'till very recently there were many people who had to pretend to be part of that "normal" community in order to avoid discrimination at best, with far worse a very real possibility.

[Dogbert]

What do these bunch of left wing Trots know

TWO-thirds of business leaders north of the Border believe the Scottish Government is handling the coronavirus crisis better than the Boris Johnson administration

IoD Scotland chairman Aidan O’Carroll said: “The majority of delegates are of the opinion that overall to date the Covid-19 pandemic has been better handled by the Scottish Government rather than that of the national government. While the decisions made at the highest levels have no doubt been incredibly difficult to make, the local nuances are so important – particularly for directors who are looking for clear and consistent guidance and support to move forward.

“However, rather unsurprisingly, it has also created an environment where the independence debate has gathered strength. This is something IoD Scotland will continue to monitor closely and ensure that business leaders’ voices are heard throughout any movement towards a future referendum.”

IoD members include chief executives of large corporations as well as entrepreneurs and directors of public sector bodies, charities and start-up companies. The organisation’s membership is drawn from a broad range of sectors.

The polling also showed only 30.3% of business leaders view themselves as “very prepared” for Brexit. Meanwhile, 62.1% of the 66 respondents for this question say they are “somewhat prepared”. And 7.6% consider themselves “not prepared at all”.

Hate to break it to you but the SG is held in very low esteem by the business community, independence isn’t even on the radar as a serious concern to anyone at the moment as the big issues are COVID and Brexit.

There is a very easy way to change the Scottish Governments policies

[Caley_Red]

The hitting children thing, Scotland becomes the first of the UK countries to ban it, Wales is due to follow suit shortly. We join some 58 (?) countries where children have the same rights as adults in respect to the right to not having to suffer physical assault.

Anyone opposed to this needs to wake up, this isn't Dickensian times anymore.

The IoD have a positive outlook on the SG's handling of the epidemic and partisan blindness elicits the expected knee-jerk response, nothing new there, there are salves available for the bruises sustained from smacking the knee on the underside of one's desk from just such a reaction.

The Hate Crime Bill (its proper title) has already been amended, the Fringe won't be affected, if someone incites racial hatred or sectarian violence or any kind of hate against a particular group from the stage they will face prosecution, the words "likely to" (incite hatred) have been taken out of the bill (as of September anyway), that puts a far greater onus on the prosecution to prove someone was trying to incite violence, hatred or discrimination due to race, sexuality, gender, nationality etc

This isn't going to be easy, there will be mistakes along the way, but we have to take the road towards everyone feeling safe, not just one section of the community - up 'till very recently there were many people who had to pretend to be part of that "normal" community in order to avoid discrimination at best, with far worse a very real possibility.

The anti free speech bill only removed one of its many egregious flaws, the bill will, for example, still allow people to be criminalised for 'insulting' (no legal threshold defined) speech, writing or behaviour if it's on the basis of nationality or race. A classic Pandora's box which is inevitably going to lead to people claiming offence (no legal threshold) and the resultant effect being a chilling of free speech and a complete waste of the police's time whilst causing undue stress to people who were mainly giving a reasoned point of view that someone found 'insulting'.
There is also the provision which means that private dwellings are no defence, any dinner time conversation which strays from Sturgeon's line of 'right think' will be potentially prosecutable including any ideas or viewpoints that someone may find 'insulting'. There is also the clause that exists on 'possessing inflammatory materials' which is again so poorly defined that religious leaders have raised the question of whether their respective holy books are in breach of this law.

Face it, the bill is a total mess: it's main points are covered by existing laws, it should be dropped, end of. Further, this would have sailed into legislation had it not been for the uproar. It's hardly a one-off either, it's part of a systematic series of authoritarian laws that the SNP have passed (or attempted to pass) in the last 5 years: Offensive Behavior at Football Act, the Named Person and Anti Free Speech bill to name but a few. Also, please don't hide behind a bill's intention as some sort of a defence of a bill, it seems to be a classic tactic. The intention is not what matters but the substance of the bill and the SNP's draft legislation always seems to come down on the side of excessive start overreach and always seems to be so poorly drafted.

You can be a Sturgeon acolyte and still make a reasonable assessment of the executive's failings.

[Dogbert]

Again - There is a very easy way to change the Scottish Governments policies

[Tichtheid]

The anti free speech bill only removed one of its many egregious flaws, the bill will, for example, still allow people to be criminalised for 'insulting' (no legal threshold defined) speech, writing or behaviour if it's on the basis of nationality or race. A classic Pandora's box which is inevitably going to lead to people claiming offence (no legal threshold) and the resultant effect being a chilling of free speech and a complete waste of the police's time whilst causing undue stress to people who were mainly giving a reasoned point of view that someone found 'insulting'.
There is also the provision which means that private dwellings are no defence, any dinner time conversation which strays from Sturgeon's line of 'right think' will be potentially prosecutable including any ideas or viewpoints that someone may find 'insulting'. There is also the clause that exists on 'possessing inflammatory materials' which is again so poorly defined that religious leaders have raised the question of whether their respective holy books are in breach of this law.

Face it, the bill is a total mess: it's main points are covered by existing laws, it should be dropped, end of. Further, this would have sailed into legislation had it not been for the uproar. It's hardly a one-off either, it's part of a systematic series of authoritarian laws that the SNP have passed (or attempted to pass) in the last 5 years: Offensive Behavior at Football Act, the Named Person and Anti Free Speech bill to name but a few. Also, please don't hide behind a bill's intention as some sort of a defence of a bill, it seems to be a classic tactic. The intention is not what matters but the substance of the bill and the SNP's draft legislation always seems to come down on the side of excessive start overreach and always seems to be so poorly drafted.

You can be a Sturgeon acolyte and still make a reasonable assessment of the executive's failings.

Can we at least agree to call the bill by its name? The Hate Crime Bill.

I'll venture a guess, I think perhaps if you'd had the shit kicked out of you for being gay, just for being gay, or for being not white, protestant and straight male in Scotland at the wrong time and place, you'd have a different view on this.

Or if you'd faced discrimination when it comes to promotion or any other workplace issues, or day to day transactions.

I'm flummoxed as to why the bill is flawed, as opposed to misogynist/racist/ablest/homophobic etc behaviour being flawed and worthy of comment.

[Tichtheid]

BTW, anyone worried about the Fringe, have you read recent statements from women comics and how they were treated at the Fringe? From audiences, promoters and "fellow" male comics?

[Tattie]

Yet again, a lot of posters unable to differentiate between being a supporter of independence and being a supporter of the SNP and all their policies. An independent Scotland will not be governed by the SNP, not for very long anyway.

If you don't like them and their policies, and want them to go away - vote for independence.

[Caley_Red]

The anti free speech bill only removed one of its many egregious flaws, the bill will, for example, still allow people to be criminalised for 'insulting' (no legal threshold defined) speech, writing or behaviour if it's on the basis of nationality or race. A classic Pandora's box which is inevitably going to lead to people claiming offence (no legal threshold) and the resultant effect being a chilling of free speech and a complete waste of the police's time whilst causing undue stress to people who were mainly giving a reasoned point of view that someone found 'insulting'.
There is also the provision which means that private dwellings are no defence, any dinner time conversation which strays from Sturgeon's line of 'right think' will be potentially prosecutable including any ideas or viewpoints that someone may find 'insulting'. There is also the clause that exists on 'possessing inflammatory materials' which is again so poorly defined that religious leaders have raised the question of whether their respective holy books are in breach of this law.

Face it, the bill is a total mess: it's main points are covered by existing laws, it should be dropped, end of. Further, this would have sailed into legislation had it not been for the uproar. It's hardly a one-off either, it's part of a systematic series of authoritarian laws that the SNP have passed (or attempted to pass) in the last 5 years: Offensive Behavior at Football Act, the Named Person and Anti Free Speech bill to name but a few. Also, please don't hide behind a bill's intention as some sort of a defence of a bill, it seems to be a classic tactic. The intention is not what matters but the substance of the bill and the SNP's draft legislation always seems to come down on the side of excessive start overreach and always seems to be so poorly drafted.

You can be a Sturgeon acolyte and still make a reasonable assessment of the executive's failings.

Can we at least agree to call the bill by its name? The Hate Crime Bill.

I'll venture a guess, I think perhaps if you'd had the shit kicked out of you for being gay, just for being gay, or for being not white, protestant and straight male in Scotland at the wrong time and place, you'd have a different view on this.

Or if you'd faced discrimination when it comes to promotion or any other workplace issues, or day to day transactions.

I'm flummoxed as to why the bill is flawed, as opposed to misogynist/racist/ablest/homophobic etc behaviour being flawed and worthy of comment.

This the stand, is it? Draw an irrelevant equivalence between me and a hypothetical victim who, by the way, is already covered by the existing patchwork of legislation.

I've laid out above exactly why it's flawed and it's nothing to do with your final paragraph, it's the fact that the threshold for having committed a 'crime' is a flimsy, unquantifiable threshold of offence/insult. I've also spoke about the other clauses in the bill which encourage people to become informants on the back of private conversations in the house, I have also highlighted how badly the bill has been written by citing the well-founded concerns of many religious groups and secularists who have complained about the bill.

Once again, you cannot judge a law by its professed intention, see my above comment (pre-empting your defence). Good intent is not analogous to good law and this is a classic example, it's the substance of the bill I'm talking about. In any case, protecting people from attacks based on given characteristics is already covered by existing UK and Scottish legislation.

[Tichtheid]

Some further reading, “Recommendations by Lord Bracadale to Scottish Ministers with analysis of his consultation exercise and an overview”


https://www.gov.scot/publications/indep ... al-report/


I’m not under any illusions that this will change the point of view of those who seem to think that anything to do with the SNP is bad.

[dpedin]

The aim the elimination strategy was to drive rates down as low as possible during the summer months in order to get testing and Track and Protect in place and up and running properly, to ensure that when the inevitable winter 2nd wave came along

The aim wasn’t to eliminate ?

Sort of a sociologists elimination?

completely remove or get rid of (something).

Completely different to

destroy completely; put an end to.

The Lancet explains it quite well, 'Disease eradication is the global reduction of infection to zero cases, whereas disease elimination is the absence of sustained endemic community transmission in a country or other geographical region.'

We will not eradicate the disease without a vaccine but we can try and eliminate it until one comes along.

[Tichtheid]

Edit, this is a follow up to a previous post

I do see problems with the Hate Crime Bill. Jerry Sadowitz would never have gotten through a gig, despite the fact he is doing something similar to Al Murray’s Pub Landlord, only with a lot more swearing.

I have to admit to being conflicted on this, you’d hope that by now people weren’t judging others because they aren’t like themselves, but violence, bullying and discrimination does happen. The bill seeks to simplify current legislation and prosecutions will have to prove aggravations regarding one of the following

o Age
o Disability
o Race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national
origins
o Religion
o Sexual orientation
o Transgender identity
o Variations in sex characteristics

On the other hand some of the wording is, errr, unclear at best and open to interpretation, which is the opposite of what legal wording is supposed achieve.

[Slick]

Had a test yesterday at 10am, result to my phone at 6.50am this morning. Pretty impressed with that.

Negative thankfully but feeling utter shite

[Northern Lights]

Yet again, a lot of posters unable to differentiate between being a supporter of independence and being a supporter of the SNP and all their policies. An independent Scotland will not be governed by the SNP, not for very long anyway.

If you don't like them and their policies, and want them to go away - vote for independence.

Alternatively just vote for a different party, any other party that suits your preference and not the snp. We aren’t voting on Indy in the upcoming elections, we are being asked who we want handling devolved matters in Scotland.

The SNP aren’t going anywhere post Indy either, that is fanciful nonsense.

[tc27]

Yet again, a lot of posters unable to differentiate between being a supporter of independence and being a supporter of the SNP and all their policies. An independent Scotland will not be governed by the SNP, not for very long anyway.

If you don't like them and their policies, and want them to go away - vote for independence.

Alternatively just vote for a different party, any other party that suits your preference and not the snp. We aren’t voting on Indy in the upcoming elections, we are being asked who we want handling devolved matters in Scotland.

The SNP aren’t going anywhere post Indy either, that is fanciful nonsense.

Indy is the ultimate snake oil - just a small dose and every ill can be resolved.

[tc27]

dpedin.

I said:

But at least he doesn't falsely claim he almost eliminated the virus only for it to be re-introduced by outsiders.

You said:

I am not sure what this is referring to?

Both Sturgeon and Devi Sridhar claimed they were close to eliminating the virus over the summer:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53195166
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53192024


I think this has created the impression that has lodged in the heads of many Scots (a credit to the FM and SNPs media management) and this is reflected in polling and indeed in some posts in this thread (to paraphrase a post a few pages back 'I'm glad im in Scotland and not that shitshow down South).

Problem is its largely just not true

In NS's own words:

I want to say just a word or two more about the fact that the number of COVID deaths rose very slightly last week, especially given that we reported no deaths at all over that period in our daily figures.

4 of the 8 deaths reported by NRS were in hospital, 2 were in care homes, and 2 were in other settings, for example at home.

Now, the reason why the 4 deaths in hospitals weren’t captured by our daily figures is that these daily figures, as I’ve mentioned already today, record people who have died within 28 days of testing positive for COVID.

However, some people who test positive receive care for more than 28 days afterwards, but sadly some of them don’t manage to recover.

So if these people die after the initial 28 days, but have COVID recorded on the death certificate as a contributory factor, then they would be included in the NRS report but not in the daily figures.

Again, that’s to give you an assurance that all deaths associated with COVID are being captured and reported between our daily figures and the National Records of Scotland report.

A further comment from elsewhere:

Furthermore, the comparison with England is misleading: the data is not like-for-like.

The daily deaths number reported in Scotland requires a positive COVID-19 test within the previous 28 days, but in England anyone who dies having ever tested positive for COVID-19 (even if they have subsequently recovered) is counted in the daily death number, whatever the actual cause of death. So, for example, someone would be counted as a daily death from COVID-19 in England if they tested positive for COVID-19 in April, made a full recovery, and then died in a road traffic accident in July.
The Scottish daily death numbers certainly miss some people who have died from COVID-19. The English daily death numbers certainly count some people who haven't died from COVID-19.

But to be clear there was no basis in the summer to claim zero deaths on any given day.

However Devi specially went on to say Scotland was successful because its death rate was one of he lowest in Europe (scratch that...world):

Devi Sridhar: Well, I guess I would compare Scotland to the rest of the world, and say right now I feel quite lucky to be here, because our testing positivity - that’s the number of positive cases to the number of total people you test - is very low. It’s under 1%, under today 0.5%, where many places in the world are around 10-20%. And also deaths. We’ve had 15 days with one death.

Devi went on to link this to Sturgeons brilliant leadership and made several comments unfavorably comparing the rest of the UK to Scotland.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/06/30/de ... le-future/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/186 ... -suggests/

Given the low testing rate and the fact that claiming zero deaths was actually just plain wrong none of these arguments now hold water.

Infact the best (IMO) indicator of Covid response is excess deaths (a lagging indicator).

As of September there is actually little difference between Scotland and other parts of the UK:




The most charitable explanation is that she was simply unaware of the real figures - but no retractions or corrections followed - no admission that clearly elimination was not a real possibility.

Sturgeon has doubled down on this all - this is shear Trumpism:



I can only imagine the response if a political leader who doesn't get a pass from the press/professional pearl clutchers to the extent she does had attempted to make this claim.

[Bimbowomxn]

dpedin.

I said:

But at least he doesn't falsely claim he almost eliminated the virus only for it to be re-introduced by outsiders.

You said:

I am not sure what this is referring to?

Both Sturgeon and Devi Sridhar claimed they were close to emilnating the virus over the summer:

That’s not the same as eradicated apparently...

[Caley_Red]

Yet again, a lot of posters unable to differentiate between being a supporter of independence and being a supporter of the SNP and all their policies. An independent Scotland will not be governed by the SNP, not for very long anyway.

If you don't like them and their policies, and want them to go away - vote for independence.

Alternatively just vote for a different party, any other party that suits your preference and not the snp. We aren’t voting on Indy in the upcoming elections, we are being asked who we want handling devolved matters in Scotland.

The SNP aren’t going anywhere post Indy either, that is fanciful nonsense.

Agree with that last part, going to be ANC mark two.

[TheNatalShark]

Agree with that last part, going to be ANC mark two.

Not that I believe Tattie was being anything but flippant, but do you really believe that would be the case?

The factors that lead to the cohesion of the ANC post apartheid wouldn't exist in this instance, both in terms of as the 'opposition' to holders of wealth and power, and democratic voter experience. Same applies to a chunk of developing world 'peaceful revolutionary' parties.

In my view they're either going to 'get the full job done' ala hard exit, or soft exit (unlikely from rUK view surely). Former leads to break-up of interests/power seeking, latter to infighting to break-up. There isn't a slavish need for devktion.

[Tichtheid]

Personally I wouldn’t vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland, and I will be back living there before that happens.

I asked before but didn’t get an answer, why should the SNP disappear after independence is achieved?

[TheNatalShark]

Personally I wouldn’t vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland, and I will be back living there before that happens.

I asked before but didn’t get an answer, why should the SNP disappear after independence is achieved?

Because it is a vehicle for a specific goal? Once the goal is 'achieved' there will be competing powers, policy preferences, etc...?

Thereafter voters are educated enough to know they don't have to have a single party state, and can (and should as demoed by Spain/eastern bloc) explore these?

[Tichtheid]

Personally I wouldn’t vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland, and I will be back living there before that happens.

I asked before but didn’t get an answer, why should the SNP disappear after independence is achieved?

Because it is a vehicle for a specific goal? Once the goal is 'achieved' there will be competing powers, policy preferences, etc...?

Thereafter voters are educated enough to know they don't have to have a single party state, and can (and should as demoed by Spain/eastern bloc) explore these?

I agree to an extent, Scotland has a form of PR and by its nature this will allow for a government of consensus with a broader spectrum of views being represented. The FPTP system used for Westminster which has in the past returned a block vote for Labour and more recently for the SNP will be gone.

I think that when Scots are voting for their own parliament there will be a natural bleed from the SNP once the goal of indy has been realised, however they will still be a relevant political force with a lot of backing, the way the proposition was made inferred that for whatever reason the SNP should disappear.
I don’t think that is reasonable or realistic, even f I wouldn’t vote for them.

[Northern Lights]

Personally I wouldn’t vote for the SNP in an independent Scotland, and I will be back living there before that happens.

I asked before but didn’t get an answer, why should the SNP disappear after independence is achieved?

Because it is a vehicle for a specific goal? Once the goal is 'achieved' there will be competing powers, policy preferences, etc...?

Thereafter voters are educated enough to know they don't have to have a single party state, and can (and should as demoed by Spain/eastern bloc) explore these?

They will just evolve if we do vote for Indy into something else. The simple fact is that they like the rest of the political parties are chock full of professional politicians and associated clingers on/greasy pole climbers, there is absolutely no way they are going anywhere. There may be splinter factions but that is all there will be they will not disintegrate as they control too much by staying together.

It might not be full on ANC but they are already showing worrying tendancies after being in power for 13 years.

[I like neeps]

There won't be a bleed from SNP post Indy unless to the Greens? Tory (right wing) nationalists voting SNP at the minute for independence? Why would you vote for Labour say to lead an independent Scotland when they're actively anti independence and have broadly similar social policies to the SNP? Same with Lib Dems.

You'd need an SNP job done split that works really.

[dpedin]

dpedin.

I said:

But at least he doesn't falsely claim he almost eliminated the virus only for it to be re-introduced by outsiders.

You said:

I am not sure what this is referring to?

Both Sturgeon and Devi Sridhar claimed they were close to eliminating the virus over the summer:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53195166
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53192024


I think this has created the impression that has lodged in the heads of many Scots (a credit to the FM and SNPs media management) and this is reflected in polling and indeed in some posts in this thread (to paraphrase a post a few pages back 'I'm glad im in Scotland and not that shitshow down South).

Problem is its largely just not true

In NS's own words:

I want to say just a word or two more about the fact that the number of COVID deaths rose very slightly last week, especially given that we reported no deaths at all over that period in our daily figures.

4 of the 8 deaths reported by NRS were in hospital, 2 were in care homes, and 2 were in other settings, for example at home.

Now, the reason why the 4 deaths in hospitals weren’t captured by our daily figures is that these daily figures, as I’ve mentioned already today, record people who have died within 28 days of testing positive for COVID.

However, some people who test positive receive care for more than 28 days afterwards, but sadly some of them don’t manage to recover.

So if these people die after the initial 28 days, but have COVID recorded on the death certificate as a contributory factor, then they would be included in the NRS report but not in the daily figures.

Again, that’s to give you an assurance that all deaths associated with COVID are being captured and reported between our daily figures and the National Records of Scotland report.

A further comment from elsewhere:

Furthermore, the comparison with England is misleading: the data is not like-for-like.

The daily deaths number reported in Scotland requires a positive COVID-19 test within the previous 28 days, but in England anyone who dies having ever tested positive for COVID-19 (even if they have subsequently recovered) is counted in the daily death number, whatever the actual cause of death. So, for example, someone would be counted as a daily death from COVID-19 in England if they tested positive for COVID-19 in April, made a full recovery, and then died in a road traffic accident in July.
The Scottish daily death numbers certainly miss some people who have died from COVID-19. The English daily death numbers certainly count some people who haven't died from COVID-19.

But to be clear there was no basis in the summer to claim zero deaths on any given day.

However Devi specially went on to say Scotland was successful because its death rate was one of he lowest in Europe (scratch that...world):

Devi Sridhar: Well, I guess I would compare Scotland to the rest of the world, and say right now I feel quite lucky to be here, because our testing positivity - that’s the number of positive cases to the number of total people you test - is very low. It’s under 1%, under today 0.5%, where many places in the world are around 10-20%. And also deaths. We’ve had 15 days with one death.

Devi went on to link this to Sturgeons brilliant leadership and made several comments unfavorably comparing the rest of the UK to Scotland.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/06/30/de ... le-future/
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/186 ... -suggests/

Given the low testing rate and the fact that claiming zero deaths was actually just plain wrong none of these arguments now hold water.

Infact the best (IMO) indicator of Covid response is excess deaths (a lagging indicator).

As of September there is actually little difference between Scotland and other parts of the UK:




The most charitable explanation is that she was simply unaware of the real figures - but no retractions or corrections followed - no admission that clearly elimination was not a real possibility.

Sturgeon has doubled down on this all - this is shear Trumpism:



I can only imagine the response if a political leader who doesn't get a pass from the press/professional pearl clutchers to the extent she does had attempted to make this claim.

Thanks for clarifying, it wasn't clear to me what you were referring to in previous post. Some reflections ...

- we were close to eliminating the virus in the summer, that is reducing the community transmission to close to zero
- despite this Wee Nic continued to hold daily briefings and went over all the numbers every day and gave the usual warnings over the data, the different measure used and why they differed and continued to push folk to drive down the virus. Meanwhile the Blonde Bumblecunt down south went on holiday. I suspect the failings of the UK Gov rather than a 'brilliant SNP PR' system explains the perception?
- I am not sure what you are criticising Wee Nic for re the number of deaths data? If you listen to her daily briefings it is made abundantly clear at every single one that there are different measures for deaths and she quite clearly makes that clear - in fact the quote you use exemplifies this. Do you listen to them? She often apologises for going through the detail of the stats used and explains when there is changes to measures. As far as I am concerned the SG have not been written to by the UK Stats Authority to stop presenting misleading data.
- I think you are out of date with your comments about the measure of cover deaths reported for the UK - see https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths and the corresponding notes
- In July, date of the article you quote, Devi was absolutely correct about positive tests per total tested was below 1%, not sure why that is wrong? It stood in good comparison with other countries around the world.
- Low testing rate, in July, was a reflection that only a small number of folk met the criteria for a test i.e. showed symptoms, came into contact with an infected person, etc. As rate of community transmission fell to very low numbers then the number of tests fell, until we change testing criteria and go to mass testing a la Liverpool this will always be the case. Also number of positive tests per number of tests isn't affected by low or high numbers of test!
- Your graph doesn't show excess deaths!
- If you use the UK Gov data then England is about 11% higher in terms of number of deaths per 100,000 with covid19 on death certificate and 28% higher in terms of deaths per 100,000 28 days after a covid19 positive test. Im not expert enough to know which is a true test but over 10% variation suggests there is an issue?
- The use of the term Trumpism is just sheer nonsense. To every day provide a detailed briefing, to provide detailed stats, to publish this data and to take questions every day from every journalist is about as far away from Trump as you can get. Perhaps the Blonde Bumbelcunt could take a lesson or two? To suggest that Wee Nic gets an easy ride from the Scottish press is just absolute nonsense and probably reflects the fact that you probably rarely read or listen to the Scottish press?

I watched the Aussies get a great win against the ABs on Saturday. Great to see the crowd in the game and it made for a great game of rugby. Why were they there, probably because both countries pursued a elimination strategy and have been successful enough to get back to normal. Without Public Health there is no economic or social health.
-

[TheNatalShark]

I agree to an extent, Scotland has a form of PR and by its nature this will allow for a government of consensus with a broader spectrum of views being represented. The FPTP system used for Westminster which has in the past returned a block vote for Labour and more recently for the SNP will be gone.

I think that when Scots are voting for their own parliament there will be a natural bleed from the SNP once the goal of indy has been realised, however they will still be a relevant political force with a lot of backing, the way the proposition was made inferred that for whatever reason the SNP should disappear.
I don’t think that is reasonable or realistic, even f I wouldn’t vote for them.

Oh yes, as a party and a force the current group think likely continue to exist for several years, too much inertia and the time scale to 'completion' for whatever their objective becomes would be drawn out. Two decades later eg ANC? Don't see them being the masters of whatever they had cobbled together, even within half of that if/when they fu.ck it up.

[TheNatalShark]

They will just evolve if we do vote for Indy into something else. The simple fact is that they like the rest of the political parties are chock full of professional politicians and associated clingers on/greasy pole climbers, there is absolutely no way they are going anywhere. There may be splinter factions but that is all there will be they will not disintegrate as they control too much by staying together.

It might not be full on ANC but they are already showing worrying tendancies after being in power for 13 years.

At the moment in my view there is only one pole to climb due to the power set-up, on basis of continental precedents I don't see shifters being happy when there are diagonal ladders to climb, and the threat of a bad exit cuts the current ladder.

Of course the potential current microcosm seen in hardliner support waining for BoJo, albeit closer to the top and he is vulnerable. Substituting the more severe pandemic of course for yet to happen exit from EU. Certainly interesting times and speculations.

I don't see the shallowness of the political pond assisting unity.

[Northern Lights]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scot ... 085102_101

Bibles and newspapers ‘would be banned under new hate crime law’
Mark McLaughlin
Sunday November 08 2020, 6.00pm, The Times
Books
Religious texts could be among the books to fall foul of proposed hate speech laws, churches warned
Religious texts could be among the books to fall foul of proposed hate speech laws, churches warned
GETTY IMAGES
Share
Save
Books, bibles and newspapers would be seized and destroyed under the SNP’s plan to criminalise “inflammatory” publications, religious and secular organisations have warned.

An unlikely alliance of chapels, kirks, gurdwaras, humanists, secularists, artists, writers and journalists have united in condemnation of the Scottish government’s Hate Crime Bill.

Only Muslim Engagement and Development (MED), an Islamic rights lobby group, and the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (Scotjec) argued that the bill did not go far enough in the latest round of scrutiny by Holyrood’s justice committee.

The bill as drafted would empower police to seize “forfeited material” to “be disposed of in such manner as the court may direct”. The National Secular Society said in a submission to the committee before parliamentary scrutiny tomorrow that the “draconian and ultimately counterproductive” bill had “dangerously low thresholds for prosecution”.

Extending its defence of free expression to religious leaders who regard same-sex relationships “abominable” and punishable by death, the society said: “While we condemn any organisation, religious or secular, that uses such hateful language about LGBT+ people, we do not believe the correct response is to criminalise such speech.”

The Network of Sikh Organisations said the law would be “weaponised” by “offence archaeologists” digging through published material to have it censored. It said that JK Rowling, the Harry Potter author who has voiced concerns about allowing trans women into female changing rooms, would “face proceedings for her position on transgenderism”.

Scottish Pen, a writers’ collective, said that sensitive subjects would disappear from literature through self-censorship if writers “feel their work and communication is being monitored by the state”. Writers would be “held accountable for how their work is interpreted or misinterpreted by others” and could face seven years in prison, it added.

An open letter signed by the writers Chris Brookmyre and Val Mcdermid, the actors Rowan Atkinson and Elaine C Smith, the playwright Alan Bissett and the chief executives of the Humanist Society of Scotland and Humanists UK, said that the bill was in danger of “stifling freedom of expression, and the ability to articulate or criticise religious and other beliefs”.

The offence of possessing inflammatory material could extend to the Bible and other religious texts, according to the Bishops Conference of Scotland, the Free Church of Scotland and the Evangelical Alliance, which represents 4,000 evangelical churches in the UK.

The Free Church, a presbyterian denomination, said its critics “should be free to mock us, ridicule us and insult us”, adding that outspoken ministers would “need to have their lawyer on speed dial to check that their sermon each week does not fall foul of the offence of stirring up hatred”.

It said in its submission: “The right for a warrant to be issued to enter a premise and remove inflammatory material and ultimately destroy it is deeply worrying to us as it could lead to certain books and publications essentially being banned.

“As books are confiscated and destroyed, precedents would develop that would amount to a list of banned books . . . and as Christians we are deeply concerned that the Bible could fall foul of this offence.”

The Bishops Conference, which represents Catholic bishops, said that priests could face prosecution for saying that “a man cannot become a woman”.

“The growth of what some describe as the cancel culture — hunting down those who disagree with prominent orthodoxies with the intention to expunge the non-compliant from public discourse and with callous disregard for their livelihoods is deeply concerning,” it said. “We risk becoming an intolerant, illiberal society.”

The Scottish Newspaper Society said that journalists would face “vexatious” legal actions that could ruin their careers, pointing out that 57 of the 67 journalists accused of phone hacking were cleared in court after years of public condemnation.

The proposal to destroy publications had “echoes of darker times”, alluding to book burning by past authoritarian regimes such as the Nazis, it said. “It would presumably cover back copies of newspapers and magazines . . . while we accept the purpose of this legislation is not to subject someone like JK Rowling or legitimate media organisations to police investigations for expressing, publishing or broadcasting controversial opinions, but we are in little doubt that would be the consequence.”

Humza Yousaf, the Scottish justice secretary, defended his plan to criminalise “insults” last month. He said it would apply only to racist comments and that religious, homophobic, transphobic and ageist abuse would be “aggravators” for other crimes.

Legal experts said that this could create a “hierarchy” of abuse, and called for the section to be removed. However, MED and Scojec said it could be fixed by extending the law to criminalise abuse of religion as well.

Scojec said that Jews were already an ethnic minority, as were Sikhs, and could be defended under plans to criminalise racist insults. However, it said that other religions should be afforded similar protections.

MED said that insults could be “equally detrimental to the lives of victims as physical violence” and must be prosecuted.

Useless still ploughing on with this shite piece of legislation.

[tc27]

- we were close to eliminating the virus in the summer, that is reducing the community transmission to close to zero

To me...this is self evidently not true...not least because areas that have eliminated the virus have not experienced second waves.

I am not sure what you are criticising Wee Nic for re the number of deaths data? If you listen to her daily briefings it is made abundantly clear at every single one that there are different measures for deaths and she quite clearly makes that clear - in fact the quote you use exemplifies this. Do you listen to them? She often apologises for going through the detail of the stats used and explains when there is changes to measures. As far as I am concerned the SG have not been written to by the UK Stats Authority to stop presenting misleading data.

Seeing as I quoted her directly qualifying the data on death rates I think its obvious I aware she discussed this in daily briefings - the criticism is aimed at polticiised advisors and outriders like Swidhar who made a great deal of hay from the incorrect death numbers over the summer.

I think you are out of date with your comments about the measure of cover deaths reported for the UK - see https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths and the corresponding notes

Not sure I am out of date its more that the reporting has gotten much better and no-one is now able to falsely compare (and create narrative from) the different methodologies for reporting Covid19 related deaths.

In July, date of the article you quote, Devi was absolutely correct about positive tests per total tested was below 1%, not sure why that is wrong? It stood in good comparison with other countries around the world.

The relevant part was the comments about deaths I left the first part of the quote in because I did not want to cut out too much of the quote. However it does strike me that crowing about the low positive rate when testing was relatively low is a bit meaningless.

Low testing rate, in July, was a reflection that only a small number of folk met the criteria for a test i.e. showed symptoms, came into contact with an infected person, etc. As rate of community transmission fell to very low numbers then the number of tests fell, until we change testing criteria and go to mass testing a la Liverpool this will always be the case. Also number of positive tests per number of tests isn't affected by low or high numbers of test!

That's a fair point - the flip side is realistic about how useful this information is (because its being used as a defensive measure to allow people to make decisions about isolating rather than in an investigative way to found out how widespread the virus is).

- Your graph doesn't show excess deaths!

Apologies I got myself mixed up here but I think this chart does succeed in making my point.

Excess deaths are a lagging indicator and arguably show less difference than that chart - I have lost the link to the original comparison but there is a good long form read of it here:

https://www.centreonconstitutionalchang ... comparison

If you use the UK Gov data then England is about 11% higher in terms of number of deaths per 100,000 with covid19 on death certificate and 28% higher in terms of deaths per 100,000 28 days after a covid19 positive test. Im not expert enough to know which is a true test but over 10% variation suggests there is an issue?

I think the 28 days figures are probably not useful..to quote the website you linked:

Total number of deaths since the start of the pandemic of people who had had a positive test result for COVID-19 and died within 28 days of the first positive test. Data from the four nations are not directly comparable as methodologies and inclusion criteria vary. Only data available for the latest reported date are shown.

Its fair to speculate why there is a (relatively minor) difference and I cant prove it not the different polices enacted by the SG or the better effectiveness of the coms - but I think its incumbent on those making that claims to prove it. There are obviously a huge number of population and geographical factors at play as well as policy.

Comparing both or the UK's numbers as a whole to Germany or Austria makes grim reading and I think shows the parochialism of arguing over a minor difference in two big numbers. We were badly let down.

The use of the term Trumpism is just sheer nonsense. To every day provide a detailed briefing, to provide detailed stats, to publish this data and to take questions every day from every journalist is about as far away from Trump as you can get. Perhaps the Blonde Bumbelcunt could take a lesson or two? To suggest that Wee Nic gets an easy ride from the Scottish press is just absolute nonsense and probably reflects the fact that you probably rarely read or listen to the Scottish press?

I consume my news online..my interest in Scottish politics has not yet led me to watching STV or subscribing to the Herald so you got me there.

All that's lovely but in my view the mask slips when she makes comments like the one I linked too.

You can play the detailed obsessed centralist 95% of the time and the nationalist demagogue 5% but its still fair to call it out.

I watched the Aussies get a great win against the ABs on Saturday. Great to see the crowd in the game and it made for a great game of rugby. Why were they there, probably because both countries pursued a elimination strategy and have been successful enough to get back to normal. Without Public Health there is no economic or social health

I think the key factor is they actually did it in a timely fashion rather than talk about it or milk political credit for trying to achieve it.