The Scottish Politics Thread

[Longshanks]

We see it differently....

Policy here is to keep it to manageable level. They won't come out and say it, but that's the situation I conclude. The vaccine can't come soon enough.

[tc27]

This we/us narrative is a bit tedious and really overplaying some slight fiddling with timings.

Its looking like England/Wales (or parts of it) was further along the curve than Scotland and NI when the UK locked down - I mean that's pretty much it.

The actual substantive response to this has being the treasury basically treating this like a war in spending terms and chucking vast amounts of cash at it.

Really the timing of air bridges to Spain ETC counts for fuck all.

[Longshanks]

When I said "we" I was referring to myself and Dogbert, sorry for confusion

[Biffer]

That's an awful lot of locations for Track & Trace to work on

Not surprised that pissed up Aberdonians can't social distanvce though - bloody golfers as well

The bars linked to the outbreak are as follows: Bieldside Inn, Bobbin, Brewdog, Buckie Farm Carvery, Café Andaluz, Café Dag, Café Drummond, The Cock & Bull, College Bar, The Dutch Mill, Dyce Carvery, East End Social Club, Ferryhill House Hotel, Hawthorn/Adam Lounge, The Howff, The Justice Mill, The Marine Hotel, McGinty's, McNasty's, Malmaison, Moonfish Café, No.10 Bar, O'Donoghues, Old Bank Bar, Prohibition, Soul, Spiders Web and The Draft Project.

There were also four leisure settings named - Aboyne Golf Club, Deeside Golf Club, Hazelhead Golf Club and Banks O'Dee Football Club.

Saw some stuff on twitter suggesting there was a group of boys on a pubcrawl.

Some fucking pub crawl if it was all of those though

[Dogbert]

We see it differently....

Policy here is to keep it to manageable level. They won't come out and say it, but that's the situation I conclude. The vaccine can't come soon enough.

Then we have potentially two seperate policies , and either could be correct.

But I know what the policy is in Scotland -its clear - irs communicated , but we simply have no clarity on what the the policy is in England , ( it looks like the policy in Nothern Ireland is aligned with Scotland) and both policies may (will ) require different approaches , including advising people in any part of both Scotland and England being specfically advises to restrict travel to varios areas - Highlighting this is not 'points scoring'

[Dogbert]

This we/us narrative is a bit tedious and really overplaying some slight fiddling with timings.

Its looking like England/Wales (or parts of it) was further along the curve than Scotland and NI when the UK locked down - I mean that's pretty much it.

The actual substantive response to this has being the treasury basically treating this like a war in spending terms and chucking vast amounts of cash at it.

Really the timing of air bridges to Spain ETC counts for fuck all.

Apart from that completely flies in the face of the Commons Home affairs committe initail report

"Coronavirus spread faster in the UK as the Government failed to bring in quarantine rules for travellers in the early days of the pandemic, according to MPs.

The “critical errors” included the “inexplicable” decision to lift all border restrictions in March, a Commons Home Affairs Committee report said.

Committee Chair Yvette Cooper told ITV News that by lifting travel restrictions, "thousands of people" with coronavirus were allowed to enter the UK "at a time when they weren't being asked to self-isolate".

She says the move "had a significant impact and accelerated the pace and the scale" of Covid-19's spread in the UK, meaning "many more people" caught the virus.

The committee was unable to find any scientific basis "at all" for the decision to lift border restrictions, Ms Cooper told ITV News.

Failure to introduce quarantine at the start of the outbreak saw up to 10,000 infected people enter the UK, accelerating the spread of disease

That's a hell of a lot infected people

[dpedin]

This we/us narrative is a bit tedious and really overplaying some slight fiddling with timings.

Its looking like England/Wales (or parts of it) was further along the curve than Scotland and NI when the UK locked down - I mean that's pretty much it.

The actual substantive response to this has being the treasury basically treating this like a war in spending terms and chucking vast amounts of cash at it.

Really the timing of air bridges to Spain ETC counts for fuck all.

I dont disagree in that initially there was a 4 country approach to this and Scotland were a bit behind the infection curve compared to London for example, although there were a number of cases coming back into Scotland in Feb/March from ski holidays in Italy, etc. We all messed up on the care home front. However we have seen a divergence of approach as the Blonde Bumblecunt began to cock up the messaging, the app, the track and trace, etc. Scotland went down the tried and tested route of using the PH teams in the local board structures who have good links with social care and councils. They also have the experience of running test, track and trace systems i.e. the outbreak of Legionnaires in Edinburgh a few years ago. England had previously almost completely dismantled PHE, slashed their and PH funding and put PH into councils and as a consequence made the stupid decision to go down the private sector (cash for buddies) route and it has been a disaster - app doesn't work, track and trace doesn't work, contact info isn't collected, collated or sent on to local PH teams in England, etc. Indeed it has been very difficult for Scotland NHS to get the same info from the UK Gov testing sites up here. However the biggest issue has been the messaging from the shower of clowns and charlatans in UK Gov - complete shambles and lots of folk down there seem to have just given up on social distancing, etc. Had a mate up to stay from down south last week - asked him to self isolate for week before coming up, to bring masks and make sure he washes his hands, gave him separate hand towels, etc. He thought I was joking and just going too far! However he was amazed at the behaviours up here - masks being work by everyone when required, hand sanitisers all over the place, social distancing in most pubs and golf clubs, no hand shaking after a round of golf, etc. He couldn't believe how serious people were taking it in Scotland compared to down south.

[tc27]

This we/us narrative is a bit tedious and really overplaying some slight fiddling with timings.

Its looking like England/Wales (or parts of it) was further along the curve than Scotland and NI when the UK locked down - I mean that's pretty much it.

The actual substantive response to this has being the treasury basically treating this like a war in spending terms and chucking vast amounts of cash at it.

Really the timing of air bridges to Spain ETC counts for fuck all.

Apart from that completely flies in the face of the Commons Home affairs committe initail report

"Coronavirus spread faster in the UK as the Government failed to bring in quarantine rules for travellers in the early days of the pandemic, according to MPs.

The “critical errors” included the “inexplicable” decision to lift all border restrictions in March, a Commons Home Affairs Committee report said.

Committee Chair Yvette Cooper told ITV News that by lifting travel restrictions, "thousands of people" with coronavirus were allowed to enter the UK "at a time when they weren't being asked to self-isolate".

She says the move "had a significant impact and accelerated the pace and the scale" of Covid-19's spread in the UK, meaning "many more people" caught the virus.

The committee was unable to find any scientific basis "at all" for the decision to lift border restrictions, Ms Cooper told ITV News.

Failure to introduce quarantine at the start of the outbreak saw up to 10,000 infected people enter the UK, accelerating the spread of disease

That's a hell of a lot infected people

None of that is mutually exclusive with my point - I absolutely agree there were some very bad decisions made in March particularity in failing to not impose any border restrictions.

[Longshanks]

We see it differently....

Policy here is to keep it to manageable level. They won't come out and say it, but that's the situation I conclude. The vaccine can't come soon enough.

Then we have potentially two seperate policies , and either could be correct.

But I know what the policy is in Scotland -its clear - irs communicated , but we simply have no clarity on what the the policy is in England , ( it looks like the policy in Nothern Ireland is aligned with Scotland) and both policies may (will ) require different approaches , including advising people in any part of both Scotland and England being specfically advises to restrict travel to varios areas - Highlighting this is not 'points scoring'

As I say we see it differently
She's like Farage in a skirt
But I cannae be bothered to argue the point any further

[Dogbert]

And when Sturgeon initially refused to open up the Air Bridge to Spain , did you support that ?

[tc27]

This we/us narrative is a bit tedious and really overplaying some slight fiddling with timings.

Its looking like England/Wales (or parts of it) was further along the curve than Scotland and NI when the UK locked down - I mean that's pretty much it.

The actual substantive response to this has being the treasury basically treating this like a war in spending terms and chucking vast amounts of cash at it.

Really the timing of air bridges to Spain ETC counts for fuck all.

I dont disagree in that initially there was a 4 country approach to this and Scotland were a bit behind the infection curve compared to London for example, although there were a number of cases coming back into Scotland in Feb/March from ski holidays in Italy, etc. We all messed up on the care home front. However we have seen a divergence of approach as the Blonde Bumblecunt began to cock up the messaging, the app, the track and trace, etc. Scotland went down the tried and tested route of using the PH teams in the local board structures who have good links with social care and councils. They also have the experience of running test, track and trace systems i.e. the outbreak of Legionnaires in Edinburgh a few years ago. England had previously almost completely dismantled PHE, slashed their and PH funding and put PH into councils and as a consequence made the stupid decision to go down the private sector (cash for buddies) route and it has been a disaster - app doesn't work, track and trace doesn't work, contact info isn't collected, collated or sent on to local PH teams in England, etc. Indeed it has been very difficult for Scotland NHS to get the same info from the UK Gov testing sites up here. However the biggest issue has been the messaging from the shower of clowns and charlatans in UK Gov - complete shambles and lots of folk down there seem to have just given up on social distancing, etc. Had a mate up to stay from down south last week - asked him to self isolate for week before coming up, to bring masks and make sure he washes his hands, gave him separate hand towels, etc. He thought I was joking and just going too far! However he was amazed at the behaviours up here - masks being work by everyone when required, hand sanitisers all over the place, social distancing in most pubs and golf clubs, no hand shaking after a round of golf, etc. He couldn't believe how serious people were taking it in Scotland compared to down south.

Paragraphs next time please.


I am not in a position to say wether the structure of PH in Scotland is better - does strike me as unlikely that councils are better funded considering the years of cuts imposed upon them from Hollyrood. If I could I could probably dig out areas where PHE is outperforming its counterpart in Scotland (off the top of my head testing for a start).

I agree the messaging in Scotland is better - Sturgeon is miles ahead of Boris in terms of communication - however I am not sure how many articulate performances from Sturgeon really compensate for the care homes fiasco (something that should claim careers down South too).

The last part of your message is entirely anecdotal - everyone I have observed in SE England is following the distancing conventions...not sure what that proves in a national sense TBH. The idea England is an infested shitehole compared to the virtuous Scots lead by Sturgeon (whole regions of England with grater populations than Scotland have lower infection rates) strikes me as the worst kind of 'Wha's Like Us' crap that fuels so much of the discourse.

[walletoraccess]

Its not perfect in Scotland re the distancing/masks
My daughter travelled into/out of Edinburgh yesterday on the bus - barely 20% of people were wearing masks and the bus home was pretty full

[Dogbert]

Just been speaking to onw of our delivery drivers who told me that he spotted quite a number of bars rammied this afternoon in Aberdeen with people trying to get that last pint in before the pubs shut - cunts

Also just been off the phone to a place near Stonehaven to cancel a meal we had booked for this weekend , and to apologise that due to being in Aberdeen we would not be able to make it , only to be told , not to worry , as they had recieved so many booking from people from Aberdeen city this afternoon , that they were now fully booked

The absolute mentality of some people is something to behold

[Bimbowomxn]

England had previously almost completely dismantled PHE, slashed their and PH funding

Public health England was established in April 2013.

[Northern Lights]

Well my home town is in lockdown, luckily for me we left for a 2 week staycation on Friday!! So unlucky suckers...

Anecdotal from me but we’ve been over to the west coast and done the Jacobite train and now down in London. I see very little difference between Scotland and England. Yes London is busier but it’s fucking London, largest city in the country.

Not going into pubs or restaurants but wasn’t really doing that back home either and I’m not seeing much difference.

The young folk in Aberdeen clearly ignored everything at the weekend but they’ve had enough, not remotely surprised this sort of thing has happened and personally feel the local lockdown is OTT. I think any government of any stripe is going to struggle to enforce or expect the same level of obedience if we do need a national one if/when a second wave comes through.

The hysteria on this is frankly ridiculous, the mortality rate of under 65’s is very small.

[Northern Lights]

Oh and I know for a fact that 2 of the pubs on the list haven’t yet been contacted through the track and tracers, so quelle surprise it looks a pile of shite too.

[Biffer]

Story going about on Twitter that a rig worker was refused transport at the heliport because he had symptoms, was told to self isolate and get a test. He didn’t and then went on a pub crawl.

Might be BS, lets face it, it’s on Twitter.

[Dogbert]

Well my home town is in lockdown, luckily for me we left for a 2 week staycation on Friday!! So unlucky suckers...

Anecdotal from me but we’ve been over to the west coast and done the Jacobite train and now down in London. I see very little difference between Scotland and England. Yes London is busier but it’s fucking London, largest city in the country.

Not going into pubs or restaurants but wasn’t really doing that back home either and I’m not seeing much difference.

The young folk in Aberdeen clearly ignored everything at the weekend but they’ve had enough, not remotely surprised this sort of thing has happened and personally feel the local lockdown is OTT. I think any government of any stripe is going to struggle to enforce or expect the same level of obedience if we do need a national one if/when a second wave comes through.

The hysteria on this is frankly ridiculous, the mortality rate of under 65’s is very small.

There is 12 million people in the UK over 65 , what do suggest these people do ?

[Dogbert]

Oh and I know for a fact that 2 of the pubs on the list haven’t yet been contacted through the track and tracers, so quelle surprise it looks a pile of shite too.

Track & Trace may not have needed to - you do know how this is supposed to work ?

They will be only looking for people who have been in Close contact - i.e spent more than 15 minutes with the infected person in a distance less than 2M

[Caley_Red]

Well my home town is in lockdown, luckily for me we left for a 2 week staycation on Friday!! So unlucky suckers...

Anecdotal from me but we’ve been over to the west coast and done the Jacobite train and now down in London. I see very little difference between Scotland and England. Yes London is busier but it’s fucking London, largest city in the country.

Not going into pubs or restaurants but wasn’t really doing that back home either and I’m not seeing much difference.

The young folk in Aberdeen clearly ignored everything at the weekend but they’ve had enough, not remotely surprised this sort of thing has happened and personally feel the local lockdown is OTT. I think any government of any stripe is going to struggle to enforce or expect the same level of obedience if we do need a national one if/when a second wave comes through.

The hysteria on this is frankly ridiculous, the mortality rate of under 65’s is very small.

There is 12 million people in the UK over 65 , what do suggest these people do ?

Stay in lockdown; my view on this has been hardening this last few months.

Given the cohort death rate and hospitalization rates, this extension of inter generational inequity (a process already at full kilter prior to COVID) is morally unacceptable. It's all about trade-offs and at this point, the current policy suite (which I am sure will be judged as some of the greatest policy failures of all time) is trashing the jobs and the economy at a price which offers statistically insignificant benefits to the workforce who bear the brunt and will have to pay higher taxes to pay down the accumulated national debt.

[Jock42]

Well my home town is in lockdown, luckily for me we left for a 2 week staycation on Friday!! So unlucky suckers...

Anecdotal from me but we’ve been over to the west coast and done the Jacobite train and now down in London. I see very little difference between Scotland and England. Yes London is busier but it’s fucking London, largest city in the country.

Not going into pubs or restaurants but wasn’t really doing that back home either and I’m not seeing much difference.

The young folk in Aberdeen clearly ignored everything at the weekend but they’ve had enough, not remotely surprised this sort of thing has happened and personally feel the local lockdown is OTT. I think any government of any stripe is going to struggle to enforce or expect the same level of obedience if we do need a national one if/when a second wave comes through.

The hysteria on this is frankly ridiculous, the mortality rate of under 65’s is very small.

There is 12 million people in the UK over 65 , what do suggest these people do ?

Oil of Olay?

[Caley_Red]

Sturgeon's free speech-crushing bill is turning out to be even more ludicrous and chilling than the farcical named person scheme: specific legal clauses making clear that there is a possibility of the act being used specifically against fictional portrayals as well as members of the public speaking in their own capacity (should anyone decide it 'stirs up hatred').

For the Scottish National party, the phrase ‘nanny state’ is not so much a criticism as an aspiration. This is the party that wanted to assign a state guardian to every child born in Scotland through its ‘named person’ scheme, only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court. Under Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, there have been repeated attempts to regulate the eating and drinking habits of people, including proposed bans on two-for-one pizza deals and minimum pricing on cheaper alcoholic drinks.

It makes sense, then, that the party’s paternalism should extend to the question of free speech. Scotland’s new Hate Crime and Public Order Bill was ostensibly proposed to repeal outdated proscriptions against blasphemy, but will instead usher in a range of new blasphemy laws by stealth. Most controversially, part two of the Bill pertains to the offence of ‘stirring up hatred’, which criminalises anyone who ‘behaves in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner’ or ‘communicates threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person’.

Moreover, the Bill explicitly allows for intention to be put aside. If behaviour or material is ‘likely’ to stir up hatred against any protected groups (defined by age, disability, racial or ethnic identity, sexual orientation, transgender identity or ‘variations in sex characteristics’) then whether or not the perpetrator intended to do so is immaterial. Even an actor playing a bigoted character could be prosecuted under the proposed laws. An entire section of the Bill is devoted to the ‘public performance of a play’, which specifies that actors and directors can be found culpable if members of protected groups find the material offensive. So if you are troubled by the anti-Semitism of Shylock’s detractors, or the Islamophobia of Tamburlaine’s decision to burn the Quran, you can complain to the Scottish police. Next year’s Edinburgh Festival should be interesting.

The implications for stand-up comedy are similarly dire. As practitioners of an art form that often teases the limits of public tolerance, comedians frequently find themselves involved in free speech battles. The dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop QC, has already warned that stand-up would not be exempt from the SNP’s Bill, and that even an old-fashioned ‘Scotsman, Irishman and Englishman’ joke may be perceived as discriminatory. Certainly, some of the more subversive acts that regularly appear at Comedy Unleashed, a night I co-founded in London, would be at risk of prosecution should they venture north of the border.

The Bill even goes as far as to criminalise the possession of ‘inflammatory’ material, which is why senior Catholic bishops have raised concerns that possession of the Bible could become a criminal offence. Let’s not forget that Leviticus 20:13 calls for the execution of gay men.

In a statement that out-Donald-Trumps Donald Trump, the SNP’s Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has asserted that the Bill ‘does not undermine free speech’, but rather ‘protects it’. Given that this Bill could see those found guilty of ‘insulting’ behaviour imprisoned for seven years, Yousaf’s claim is at once hilarious and disturbing.

‘The Bill does not seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate in any way,’ writes Yousaf. ‘People will still be able to express controversial, challenging or even offensive views as long as this is not done in a threatening or abusive way that is intended to stir up hatred or likely to stir up hatred.’ None of which addresses the problem of how such vague legislation is apt to be interpreted. In accordance with all official law enforcement guidance in the UK, the website for Police Scotland defines an incident or crime as ‘hateful’ based on the perception of the ‘victim’ (Newspeak for ‘complainant’). If hatred is a matter of perception and not intent, and even the context of dramatic representation is considered irrelevant, how can we possibly safeguard against the abuse of state power?

We must always be vigilant against the introduction of legislation when couched in such vague terms. Yousaf’s stated conviction that ‘free speech itself is never an unfettered right’ strongly suggests that the Bill’s ambiguity is no accident. Even the Scottish Police Federation has warned that its effects would be tantamount to the ‘policing of what people think or feel’, and the Law Society of Scotland had called it a ‘significant threat to freedom of expressions’. That the SNP seem determined to ignore these objections may not be particularly surprising, but it should be a matter of uttermost concern for those of us who still believe in the preservation of liberal values.

[Northern Lights]

Well my home town is in lockdown, luckily for me we left for a 2 week staycation on Friday!! So unlucky suckers...

Anecdotal from me but we’ve been over to the west coast and done the Jacobite train and now down in London. I see very little difference between Scotland and England. Yes London is busier but it’s fucking London, largest city in the country.

Not going into pubs or restaurants but wasn’t really doing that back home either and I’m not seeing much difference.

The young folk in Aberdeen clearly ignored everything at the weekend but they’ve had enough, not remotely surprised this sort of thing has happened and personally feel the local lockdown is OTT. I think any government of any stripe is going to struggle to enforce or expect the same level of obedience if we do need a national one if/when a second wave comes through.

The hysteria on this is frankly ridiculous, the mortality rate of under 65’s is very small.

There is 12 million people in the UK over 65 , what do suggest these people do ?

Make their own informed choice on the risk they are prepared to take.

The health service which we initially locked down to protect is absolutely fine, in fact ARI is empty.

The fatality rate is about 0.3%, I can live with those odds. More people will be dying of cancer daily but that is not getting the sexy news headlines or allows Sturgeon to preach from her pulpit.

[Biffer]

Well my home town is in lockdown, luckily for me we left for a 2 week staycation on Friday!! So unlucky suckers...

Anecdotal from me but we’ve been over to the west coast and done the Jacobite train and now down in London. I see very little difference between Scotland and England. Yes London is busier but it’s fucking London, largest city in the country.

Not going into pubs or restaurants but wasn’t really doing that back home either and I’m not seeing much difference.

The young folk in Aberdeen clearly ignored everything at the weekend but they’ve had enough, not remotely surprised this sort of thing has happened and personally feel the local lockdown is OTT. I think any government of any stripe is going to struggle to enforce or expect the same level of obedience if we do need a national one if/when a second wave comes through.

The hysteria on this is frankly ridiculous, the mortality rate of under 65’s is very small.

There is 12 million people in the UK over 65 , what do suggest these people do ?

Make their own informed choice on the risk they are prepared to take.

The health service which we initially locked down to protect is absolutely fine, in fact ARI is empty.

The fatality rate is about 0.3%, I can live with those odds. More people will be dying of cancer daily but that is not getting the sexy news headlines or allows Sturgeon to preach from her pulpit.

But (once again), the problem is your judgement is not just about your risk. You’re taking a risk on other people’s behalf as well.

[Northern Lights]

Oh and I know for a fact that 2 of the pubs on the list haven’t yet been contacted through the track and tracers, so quelle surprise it looks a pile of shite too.

Track & Trace may not have needed to - you do know how this is supposed to work ?

They will be only looking for people who have been in Close contact - i.e spent more than 15 minutes with the infected person in a distance less than 2M

Yes I know how it works which is why you give your details to the pubs when you go in or you are meant to.

Simple fact is that 2 of the pubs on the published list haven’t been contacted (as of last night, 4 days later) for who their customers were that evening, so they haven’t the faintest idea of who has been close to you for 15mins or 2 hours. 15mins being arbitrary like 2m distance is, it’s just where they’ve decided to draw the line.
It’s a fucking shambles.

[Northern Lights]

There is 12 million people in the UK over 65 , what do suggest these people do ?

Make their own informed choice on the risk they are prepared to take.

The health service which we initially locked down to protect is absolutely fine, in fact ARI is empty.

The fatality rate is about 0.3%, I can live with those odds. More people will be dying of cancer daily but that is not getting the sexy news headlines or allows Sturgeon to preach from her pulpit.

But (once again), the problem is your judgement is not just about your risk. You’re taking a risk on other people’s behalf as well.

Only if I am putting myself in contact with other people who are also capable of judging whether they are putting themselves at risk with me.

There is no weighting of risk being done to the effects of these lockdowns. The virus simply isn’t going away, we need to quickly establish how we live with it, circulating the population.

Elimination is a daft goal to be aiming for and has shown the mission creep and plays perfectly into the central control tendencies of Sturgeon and her goons.

[Slick]

Sturgeon's free speech-crushing bill is turning out to be even more ludicrous and chilling than the farcical named person scheme: specific legal clauses making clear that there is a possibility of the act being used specifically against fictional portrayals as well as members of the public speaking in their own capacity (should anyone decide it 'stirs up hatred').

For the Scottish National party, the phrase ‘nanny state’ is not so much a criticism as an aspiration. This is the party that wanted to assign a state guardian to every child born in Scotland through its ‘named person’ scheme, only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court. Under Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, there have been repeated attempts to regulate the eating and drinking habits of people, including proposed bans on two-for-one pizza deals and minimum pricing on cheaper alcoholic drinks.

It makes sense, then, that the party’s paternalism should extend to the question of free speech. Scotland’s new Hate Crime and Public Order Bill was ostensibly proposed to repeal outdated proscriptions against blasphemy, but will instead usher in a range of new blasphemy laws by stealth. Most controversially, part two of the Bill pertains to the offence of ‘stirring up hatred’, which criminalises anyone who ‘behaves in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner’ or ‘communicates threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person’.

Moreover, the Bill explicitly allows for intention to be put aside. If behaviour or material is ‘likely’ to stir up hatred against any protected groups (defined by age, disability, racial or ethnic identity, sexual orientation, transgender identity or ‘variations in sex characteristics’) then whether or not the perpetrator intended to do so is immaterial. Even an actor playing a bigoted character could be prosecuted under the proposed laws. An entire section of the Bill is devoted to the ‘public performance of a play’, which specifies that actors and directors can be found culpable if members of protected groups find the material offensive. So if you are troubled by the anti-Semitism of Shylock’s detractors, or the Islamophobia of Tamburlaine’s decision to burn the Quran, you can complain to the Scottish police. Next year’s Edinburgh Festival should be interesting.

The implications for stand-up comedy are similarly dire. As practitioners of an art form that often teases the limits of public tolerance, comedians frequently find themselves involved in free speech battles. The dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop QC, has already warned that stand-up would not be exempt from the SNP’s Bill, and that even an old-fashioned ‘Scotsman, Irishman and Englishman’ joke may be perceived as discriminatory. Certainly, some of the more subversive acts that regularly appear at Comedy Unleashed, a night I co-founded in London, would be at risk of prosecution should they venture north of the border.

The Bill even goes as far as to criminalise the possession of ‘inflammatory’ material, which is why senior Catholic bishops have raised concerns that possession of the Bible could become a criminal offence. Let’s not forget that Leviticus 20:13 calls for the execution of gay men.

In a statement that out-Donald-Trumps Donald Trump, the SNP’s Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has asserted that the Bill ‘does not undermine free speech’, but rather ‘protects it’. Given that this Bill could see those found guilty of ‘insulting’ behaviour imprisoned for seven years, Yousaf’s claim is at once hilarious and disturbing.

‘The Bill does not seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate in any way,’ writes Yousaf. ‘People will still be able to express controversial, challenging or even offensive views as long as this is not done in a threatening or abusive way that is intended to stir up hatred or likely to stir up hatred.’ None of which addresses the problem of how such vague legislation is apt to be interpreted. In accordance with all official law enforcement guidance in the UK, the website for Police Scotland defines an incident or crime as ‘hateful’ based on the perception of the ‘victim’ (Newspeak for ‘complainant’). If hatred is a matter of perception and not intent, and even the context of dramatic representation is considered irrelevant, how can we possibly safeguard against the abuse of state power?

We must always be vigilant against the introduction of legislation when couched in such vague terms. Yousaf’s stated conviction that ‘free speech itself is never an unfettered right’ strongly suggests that the Bill’s ambiguity is no accident. Even the Scottish Police Federation has warned that its effects would be tantamount to the ‘policing of what people think or feel’, and the Law Society of Scotland had called it a ‘significant threat to freedom of expressions’. That the SNP seem determined to ignore these objections may not be particularly surprising, but it should be a matter of uttermost concern for those of us who still believe in the preservation of liberal values.

I don't think there is necessarily some dastardly plot to stiffle free speech and make SG omnipotent, rather they see where they think they would like to be (a northern utopia of diversity, inclusion and sunny uplands - a noble cause, no doubt) but don't have the intellectual or political capacity to achieve it. No idea of consequences, not the slightest grasp of realpolitik. There seems to me to be a real dearth of talent across the board in SG and SNP which makes fucking up almost inevitable - I mean, for instance, Humza as Justice Secretary? Fucking hell.

[Caley_Red]

Sturgeon's free speech-crushing bill is turning out to be even more ludicrous and chilling than the farcical named person scheme: specific legal clauses making clear that there is a possibility of the act being used specifically against fictional portrayals as well as members of the public speaking in their own capacity (should anyone decide it 'stirs up hatred').

For the Scottish National party, the phrase ‘nanny state’ is not so much a criticism as an aspiration. This is the party that wanted to assign a state guardian to every child born in Scotland through its ‘named person’ scheme, only to be thwarted by the Supreme Court. Under Nicola Sturgeon’s leadership, there have been repeated attempts to regulate the eating and drinking habits of people, including proposed bans on two-for-one pizza deals and minimum pricing on cheaper alcoholic drinks.

It makes sense, then, that the party’s paternalism should extend to the question of free speech. Scotland’s new Hate Crime and Public Order Bill was ostensibly proposed to repeal outdated proscriptions against blasphemy, but will instead usher in a range of new blasphemy laws by stealth. Most controversially, part two of the Bill pertains to the offence of ‘stirring up hatred’, which criminalises anyone who ‘behaves in a threatening, abusive or insulting manner’ or ‘communicates threatening, abusive or insulting material to another person’.

Moreover, the Bill explicitly allows for intention to be put aside. If behaviour or material is ‘likely’ to stir up hatred against any protected groups (defined by age, disability, racial or ethnic identity, sexual orientation, transgender identity or ‘variations in sex characteristics’) then whether or not the perpetrator intended to do so is immaterial. Even an actor playing a bigoted character could be prosecuted under the proposed laws. An entire section of the Bill is devoted to the ‘public performance of a play’, which specifies that actors and directors can be found culpable if members of protected groups find the material offensive. So if you are troubled by the anti-Semitism of Shylock’s detractors, or the Islamophobia of Tamburlaine’s decision to burn the Quran, you can complain to the Scottish police. Next year’s Edinburgh Festival should be interesting.

The implications for stand-up comedy are similarly dire. As practitioners of an art form that often teases the limits of public tolerance, comedians frequently find themselves involved in free speech battles. The dean of the Faculty of Advocates, Roddy Dunlop QC, has already warned that stand-up would not be exempt from the SNP’s Bill, and that even an old-fashioned ‘Scotsman, Irishman and Englishman’ joke may be perceived as discriminatory. Certainly, some of the more subversive acts that regularly appear at Comedy Unleashed, a night I co-founded in London, would be at risk of prosecution should they venture north of the border.

The Bill even goes as far as to criminalise the possession of ‘inflammatory’ material, which is why senior Catholic bishops have raised concerns that possession of the Bible could become a criminal offence. Let’s not forget that Leviticus 20:13 calls for the execution of gay men.

In a statement that out-Donald-Trumps Donald Trump, the SNP’s Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf has asserted that the Bill ‘does not undermine free speech’, but rather ‘protects it’. Given that this Bill could see those found guilty of ‘insulting’ behaviour imprisoned for seven years, Yousaf’s claim is at once hilarious and disturbing.

‘The Bill does not seek to stifle criticism or rigorous debate in any way,’ writes Yousaf. ‘People will still be able to express controversial, challenging or even offensive views as long as this is not done in a threatening or abusive way that is intended to stir up hatred or likely to stir up hatred.’ None of which addresses the problem of how such vague legislation is apt to be interpreted. In accordance with all official law enforcement guidance in the UK, the website for Police Scotland defines an incident or crime as ‘hateful’ based on the perception of the ‘victim’ (Newspeak for ‘complainant’). If hatred is a matter of perception and not intent, and even the context of dramatic representation is considered irrelevant, how can we possibly safeguard against the abuse of state power?

We must always be vigilant against the introduction of legislation when couched in such vague terms. Yousaf’s stated conviction that ‘free speech itself is never an unfettered right’ strongly suggests that the Bill’s ambiguity is no accident. Even the Scottish Police Federation has warned that its effects would be tantamount to the ‘policing of what people think or feel’, and the Law Society of Scotland had called it a ‘significant threat to freedom of expressions’. That the SNP seem determined to ignore these objections may not be particularly surprising, but it should be a matter of uttermost concern for those of us who still believe in the preservation of liberal values.

I don't think there is necessarily some dastardly plot to stiffle free speech and make SG omnipotent, rather they see where they think they would like to be (a northern utopia of diversity, inclusion and sunny uplands - a noble cause, no doubt) but don't have the intellectual or political capacity to achieve it. No idea of consequences, not the slightest grasp of realpolitik. There seems to me to be a real dearth of talent across the board in SG and SNP which makes fucking up almost inevitable - I mean, for instance, Humza as Justice Secretary? Fucking hell.

Oh, I've no doubt they're all deeply incompetent but this is very much 'fool me once, shame on you . . . ' : they've had two other high profile authoritarian overreaches in the last number of years, one was reversed when all the opposition parties managed to get their act together, the second was struck down by the supreme court.

This one may be struck down earlier, who knows.

All in all, it demonstrates a systematic pattern of criminalising behaviour and increasing the state's control beyond what is acceptable in a civil society, in my view. Incompetent, yes, but nefarious and iniquitous, also yes.

[dpedin]

Elimination is not a daft goal! Rather than debate this I would suggest you just read Devi Sridhar, Linda Bauld et al from UoE - they seem to know what they are talking about?

Focusing just on the death rate - whether it is 0.3% or 0.6% or 1% - is missing the point entirely. A not insignificant percentage of other folk who contract covid19 and even have just a mild infection may still develop significant health problems. These may be long lasting and will likely place a significant burden on the NHS. I watched the documentary on BBC last night with the van Tulleken twins, one of whom suffered ongoing cardiac issues post covid and is getting regular cardiac monitoring and interventions when required to manage it. Personally I ended up with a blood clot in my lungs as a result of covid and so far a 3 night stay in hospital, 1 GP consultation, I outpatient appt, 1 x-ray, 2 CT with contrast scans, 1 echocardiagram, numerous blood tests, 3 months on expensive anticoagulants, etc all as a result of covid. The idea that this is no more than a flu, has a very low death rate and only kills very old folk is at best only part of the wider picture. Folk need to waken up to the wider health ramifications of this virus. The docs I know and work with are very concerned about the wider and longer term impact of this virus and are seeing increasing range of issues across all our body organs/systems.

For me we need to drive the number of cases as low as possible and have an effective Track and Protect system working closely with local GPs and primary care and other systems i.e. education, housing, transport, etc to implement actions when required in response to local outbreaks. We need to keep the number of cases as low as possible. Up to now, and after we saw a divergence with the UK Gov approach, I think the SG strategy and how it has been implemented has been the right one and has been achieving the results. Loosening the lock down bit by bit, monitor the impact and react accordingly and when safe move onto the next loosening off stage has worked. However there will be the expected local outbreaks as in Aberdeen, and have been seen across the world, and these need to be controlled as quickly as possible. What we have in effect is a real working version of what the Blonde Bumblecunt would call (I hate this phrase!) the 'whack-a-mole' strategy. Unfortunately in England whilst this is what he said he wanted the way the have set up their systems, based around an expensive and incompetent private sector provision, they will struggle to achieve this.

[dpedin]

England had previously almost completely dismantled PHE, slashed their and PH funding

Public health England was established in April 2013.

... and have lost c£800m of the funding they started with in 2013. What happened to it? Who knows, packaged off to compensate for funding cuts to councils who had to pick up some of the PH responsibilities. PHE are not responsible nor funded for pandemic planning and mass testing, this rests with the Gov. Lets blame Cameron and Lansley for the lack of capacity, poor coordination and a complete clusterfuck then?

[Northern Lights]

Elimination is not a daft goal! Rather than debate this I would suggest you just read Devi Sridhar, Linda Bauld et al from UoE - they seem to know what they are talking about?

Focusing just on the death rate - whether it is 0.3% or 0.6% or 1% - is missing the point entirely. A not insignificant percentage of other folk who contract covid19 and even have just a mild infection may still develop significant health problems. These may be long lasting and will likely place a significant burden on the NHS. I watched the documentary on BBC last night with the van Tulleken twins, one of whom suffered ongoing cardiac issues post covid and is getting regular cardiac monitoring and interventions when required to manage it. Personally I ended up with a blood clot in my lungs as a result of covid and so far a 3 night stay in hospital, 1 GP consultation, I outpatient appt, 1 x-ray, 2 CT with contrast scans, 1 echocardiagram, numerous blood tests, 3 months on expensive anticoagulants, etc all as a result of covid. The idea that this is no more than a flu, has a very low death rate and only kills very old folk is at best only part of the wider picture. Folk need to waken up to the wider health ramifications of this virus. The docs I know and work with are very concerned about the wider and longer term impact of this virus and are seeing increasing range of issues across all our body organs/systems.

For me we need to drive the number of cases as low as possible and have an effective Track and Protect system working closely with local GPs and primary care and other systems i.e. education, housing, transport, etc to implement actions when required in response to local outbreaks. We need to keep the number of cases as low as possible. Up to now, and after we saw a divergence with the UK Gov approach, I think the SG strategy and how it has been implemented has been the right one and has been achieving the results. Loosening the lock down bit by bit, monitor the impact and react accordingly and when safe move onto the next loosening off stage has worked. However there will be the expected local outbreaks as in Aberdeen, and have been seen across the world, and these need to be controlled as quickly as possible. What we have in effect is a real working version of what the Blonde Bumblecunt would call (I hate this phrase!) the 'whack-a-mole' strategy. Unfortunately in England whilst this is what he said he wanted the way the have set up their systems, based around an expensive and incompetent private sector provision, they will struggle to achieve this.

It is a daft goal unless you want to accept having no economy left and deal with this virus to the exclusion of far more widespread and deadlier health issues.

I do not doubt the expertise in virology of the UoE team you quote but I most certainly won’t be looking to them on the wider economic and other associated costs that will come as a result of this policy and actions.

I firmly believe history will judge our response harshly.

As I and others have pointed out, there is very little difference between England and Scotland and their approach to this virus, not that you will accept this and are quite happy to emphasise differences that just aren’t there.

[Biffer]

Elimination is not a daft goal! Rather than debate this I would suggest you just read Devi Sridhar, Linda Bauld et al from UoE - they seem to know what they are talking about?

Focusing just on the death rate - whether it is 0.3% or 0.6% or 1% - is missing the point entirely. A not insignificant percentage of other folk who contract covid19 and even have just a mild infection may still develop significant health problems. These may be long lasting and will likely place a significant burden on the NHS. I watched the documentary on BBC last night with the van Tulleken twins, one of whom suffered ongoing cardiac issues post covid and is getting regular cardiac monitoring and interventions when required to manage it. Personally I ended up with a blood clot in my lungs as a result of covid and so far a 3 night stay in hospital, 1 GP consultation, I outpatient appt, 1 x-ray, 2 CT with contrast scans, 1 echocardiagram, numerous blood tests, 3 months on expensive anticoagulants, etc all as a result of covid. The idea that this is no more than a flu, has a very low death rate and only kills very old folk is at best only part of the wider picture. Folk need to waken up to the wider health ramifications of this virus. The docs I know and work with are very concerned about the wider and longer term impact of this virus and are seeing increasing range of issues across all our body organs/systems.

For me we need to drive the number of cases as low as possible and have an effective Track and Protect system working closely with local GPs and primary care and other systems i.e. education, housing, transport, etc to implement actions when required in response to local outbreaks. We need to keep the number of cases as low as possible. Up to now, and after we saw a divergence with the UK Gov approach, I think the SG strategy and how it has been implemented has been the right one and has been achieving the results. Loosening the lock down bit by bit, monitor the impact and react accordingly and when safe move onto the next loosening off stage has worked. However there will be the expected local outbreaks as in Aberdeen, and have been seen across the world, and these need to be controlled as quickly as possible. What we have in effect is a real working version of what the Blonde Bumblecunt would call (I hate this phrase!) the 'whack-a-mole' strategy. Unfortunately in England whilst this is what he said he wanted the way the have set up their systems, based around an expensive and incompetent private sector provision, they will struggle to achieve this.

It is a daft goal unless you want to accept having no economy left and deal with this virus to the exclusion of far more widespread and deadlier health issues.

I do not doubt the expertise in virology of the UoE team you quote but I most certainly won’t be looking to them on the wider economic and other associated costs that will come as a result of this policy and actions.

I firmly believe history will judge our response harshly.

As I and others have pointed out, there is very little difference between England and Scotland and their approach to this virus, not that you will accept this and are quite happy to emphasise differences that just aren’t there.

They haven't made clear enough that what they're talking about when they say elimination is elimination of community transmission. It's been talked about at one or two of the briefings, but not emphasised. You'll get flare ups with that policy but the idea is to stop a flare up turning into thousands of cases.

[dpedin]

Elimination is not a daft goal! Rather than debate this I would suggest you just read Devi Sridhar, Linda Bauld et al from UoE - they seem to know what they are talking about?

Focusing just on the death rate - whether it is 0.3% or 0.6% or 1% - is missing the point entirely. A not insignificant percentage of other folk who contract covid19 and even have just a mild infection may still develop significant health problems. These may be long lasting and will likely place a significant burden on the NHS. I watched the documentary on BBC last night with the van Tulleken twins, one of whom suffered ongoing cardiac issues post covid and is getting regular cardiac monitoring and interventions when required to manage it. Personally I ended up with a blood clot in my lungs as a result of covid and so far a 3 night stay in hospital, 1 GP consultation, I outpatient appt, 1 x-ray, 2 CT with contrast scans, 1 echocardiagram, numerous blood tests, 3 months on expensive anticoagulants, etc all as a result of covid. The idea that this is no more than a flu, has a very low death rate and only kills very old folk is at best only part of the wider picture. Folk need to waken up to the wider health ramifications of this virus. The docs I know and work with are very concerned about the wider and longer term impact of this virus and are seeing increasing range of issues across all our body organs/systems.

For me we need to drive the number of cases as low as possible and have an effective Track and Protect system working closely with local GPs and primary care and other systems i.e. education, housing, transport, etc to implement actions when required in response to local outbreaks. We need to keep the number of cases as low as possible. Up to now, and after we saw a divergence with the UK Gov approach, I think the SG strategy and how it has been implemented has been the right one and has been achieving the results. Loosening the lock down bit by bit, monitor the impact and react accordingly and when safe move onto the next loosening off stage has worked. However there will be the expected local outbreaks as in Aberdeen, and have been seen across the world, and these need to be controlled as quickly as possible. What we have in effect is a real working version of what the Blonde Bumblecunt would call (I hate this phrase!) the 'whack-a-mole' strategy. Unfortunately in England whilst this is what he said he wanted the way the have set up their systems, based around an expensive and incompetent private sector provision, they will struggle to achieve this.

It is a daft goal unless you want to accept having no economy left and deal with this virus to the exclusion of far more widespread and deadlier health issues.

I do not doubt the expertise in virology of the UoE team you quote but I most certainly won’t be looking to them on the wider economic and other associated costs that will come as a result of this policy and actions.

I firmly believe history will judge our response harshly.

As I and others have pointed out, there is very little difference between England and Scotland and their approach to this virus, not that you will accept this and are quite happy to emphasise differences that just aren’t there.

I don't think an elimination strategy and a functioning economy are mutually exclusive! In fact I think the elimination strategy being adopted by the SG is the best way of getting the economy running again. If you get the number of cases as low as possible then keeping it there is about local response to outbreaks. However for the majority of the country the low number of cases will enable the economy and society to build confidence and get back to normality with minimal social distancing requirements. It avoids any damaging major or national lock downs and avoids the NHS and associated systems being overwhelmed. It does however require a working and effective Track and Protect system in place and the lock down mechanisms ready if required. As we get better at this and understand the data around testing, cases and hospital info, then the actions required will get more focused, more targeted and more effective. We will hopefully develop our understanding of how the virus spreads and adjust accordingly. The public will begin to see the cause and effect of not following the guidance and behaviours will adapt.

To be honest if we don't do this then what is the option - a Trump style let it roam free!

On England v Scotland or indeed Wales and NI differences. I accept there was a joined up UK wide response to the initial stages of the pandemic. However the strategies began to diverge half way through and we have seen both a more careful and measured easing of lock down approach in Scotland, Wales and NI, a different communication and information strategy and more importantly a difference in the systems and mechanisms in implementation of the strategies. Since then we have seen an ongoing divergence in the number of deaths and cases between England and the other three countries.

[Dogbert]

So we let the Virus run through the Community as advised by NL & Caley Red

Caley suggets that all over 65's shield permanently - since over 5 million Grandparents provide regular childcare , what do you intend on replacing that childcare with right now - if they are shielding - what effect will that have on the economy , if people childcare suddenly stops.

Lets say these most of risk people say sod it - not going to shield - how quickly will the hospitals be overun with COVID 19 - taking up ICU & ward capacity - and not just of the over 65's, but the other people who will not die , but will be admitted to Hospital' look at the hospitalisation rates even for people in their 30's and 40's - it woulstake much for a rampant virus to completely overwhelm the NHS

What happens to all the other people who require ongoing hospital treatment if taht happens ?

[I like neeps]

The problem is hospitals being overrun. Already there aren't enough staff so what happens when half the staff are off self isolating again?

The governments are damned if they do damned if they don't. I don't know what to think anymore. Just now it's fine being outside with friends and family but winter is coming and it's not fine.

I do think over 65s or people in specific high risk categories should be locked down first. I get that grandparents are used for childsupport but governments could really increase actual child support capacity. I used to get early school and after school clubs as well as a childminder or two. I realise all that's been cut but could be brought back.

[Jock42]

The problem is hospitals being overrun. Already there aren't enough staff so what happens when half the staff are off self isolating again?

This is a particular bug bear of mine atm. This is not going to go away. We don't know how effective a vaccine can be and we've got staff isolating (still) for a number of reasons.

Now you don't have to be super fit to do my job, and less so in hospital, but there needs to be a more stringent fitness policy. Although the risk is obviously a lot higher now, we've always had the potential to come in to contact with infectious diseases.

[Jock42]

look at the hospitalisation rates even for people in their 30's and 40's - it woulstake much for a rampant virus to completely overwhelm the NHS

I'd like to see a comprehensive stat for that. Ie, when 30 and 40yo were admitted during the pandemic, what symptoms they were displaying, their length of admission and how many were positive. I suspect it will be heavily skewed by the initial couple of months when we didnt know what the fvck we were doing and everyone with a temp was being admitted through covid wards.

I'd also say that it was pretty rampant and we were nowhere near overwhelmed by this. Now this might change when the nhs eventually gets back to normal and people starting getting the help for illnesses that were deemed low priority but have seen people become critically ill as a cause.

For a complete digression GPs can get back to work properly too.

[Biffer]

look at the hospitalisation rates even for people in their 30's and 40's - it woulstake much for a rampant virus to completely overwhelm the NHS

I'd like to see a comprehensive stat for that. Ie, when 30 and 40yo were admitted during the pandemic, what symptoms they were displaying, their length of admission and how many were positive. I suspect it will be heavily skewed by the initial couple of months when we didnt know what the fvck we were doing and everyone with a temp was being admitted through covid wards.

I'd also say that it was pretty rampant and we were nowhere near overwhelmed by this. Now this might change when the nhs eventually gets back to normal and people starting getting the help for illnesses that were deemed low priority but have seen people become critically ill as a cause.

For a complete digression GPs can get back to work properly too.

It wasn’t that rampant. Less than 10% of the population infected in four months. Not hard to see that doubling or more in the winter.

[Jock42]

What constitutes rampant then? Is there an official definition for rampant?

[Biffer]

What constitutes rampant then? Is there an official definition for rampant?

No there's not. Which is why I used a qualifier.