NPR

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:43 am

Jock42 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:30 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:23 am I don't think the SNP will garner as much support in an independent Scotland, the Labour vote collapsed due to Scottish Labour's ineptitude, but a rejuvenated party could do well. The Tories would be represented as well, unfortunately, and hopefully a Green vote would become viable along with other parties and independents.

If I were to make a wish list part of it would be for a functioning coalition government that represented the electorate and acted in their interest. (naïve? moi?)

I haven't really looked into the viability or demand for it, but it seems bonkers to me that Scotland doesn't have direct ferry links with the Scandi countries, it would take traffic off the roads and surely lessen delivery times, likewise for tourism.

Thats a long old ferry. I can't imagine there's that many goods needing moved between the countries to warrant that.

Would it be a longer journey in total than driving from, say, Perth to Hull or Dover to get the crossing over to Rotterdam and from there back up to Germany, Denmark, Sweden or wherever? Edinburgh to Copenhagen is almost half the distance as the crow flies as it is via the current transport system.

As I say it's something I haven't researched. It also depends on where our future trading partner would be, there is much talk of a northern European trading partnership.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:43 am

Jock42 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:30 am

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:23 am I don't think the SNP will garner as much support in an independent Scotland, the Labour vote collapsed due to Scottish Labour's ineptitude, but a rejuvenated party could do well. The Tories would be represented as well, unfortunately, and hopefully a Green vote would become viable along with other parties and independents.

If I were to make a wish list part of it would be for a functioning coalition government that represented the electorate and acted in their interest. (naïve? moi?)

I haven't really looked into the viability or demand for it, but it seems bonkers to me that Scotland doesn't have direct ferry links with the Scandi countries, it would take traffic off the roads and surely lessen delivery times, likewise for tourism.

Thats a long old ferry. I can't imagine there's that many goods needing moved between the countries to warrant that.

Would it be a longer journey in total than driving from, say, Perth to Hull or Dover to get the crossing over to Rotterdam and from there back up to Germany, Denmark, Sweden or wherever? Edinburgh to Copenhagen is almost half the distance as the crow flies as it is via the current transport system.

As I say it's something I haven't researched. It also depends on where our future trading partner would be, there is much talk of a northern European trading partnership.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:50 am I'd bloody love a ferry from Scotland to Holland/Europe

I think the Rotterdam route just wasn't economically viable, which surprises me, even as a seasonal service.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:50 am I'd bloody love a ferry from Scotland to Holland/Europe

I think the Rotterdam route just wasn't economically viable, which surprises me, even as a seasonal service.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:13 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:50 am I'd bloody love a ferry from Scotland to Holland/Europe

I think the Rotterdam route just wasn't economically viable, which surprises me, even as a seasonal service.

Rosyth-Zeebrugge still runs as a lorry-only ferry, does it not? No idea if it was ever seriously scoped as a passenger ferry.

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 12:03 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 11:50 am I'd bloody love a ferry from Scotland to Holland/Europe

I think the Rotterdam route just wasn't economically viable, which surprises me, even as a seasonal service.

Can you do customs processing on board a ferry if there's more time? Might help viability post Brexit. A post indy and post brexit scenario may substantially change the economic model for a ferry.

We need time out from independence debate
Holyrood and Westminster cannot afford to bicker while the pandemic is running its course
Kenny Farquharson
Tuesday September 01 2020, 12.00am, The Times

Just now our politicians should have two goals: saving lives and saving life chances. Anything else is a dangerous distraction.

With a second wave threatening, the fight to control the coronavirus is entering a crucial stage. At the same time, the full impact on jobs and the economy is about to become all too clear, with millions added to unemployment queues. As for our children’s education, well, that is a whole other world of pain.

Lives and life chances. The gravity of the challenge should not be hard to understand, nor the need for single-mindedness. And yet our politicians seem unable to put aside their legacy differences, particularly on the constitution, and work together at a time of crisis.

Scotland has two governments, one at Westminster and one at Holyrood. For some people this is one too many. Difference of opinion on this is a legitimate political debate and may well have to be resolved by a new vote at some point in the future. But it cannot dictate and dominate our politics at present. We have more important matters to deal with.

Here in Scotland the public health challenge is almost wholly a matter for Nicola Sturgeon and her SNP government. The economic challenge, however, is one where the levers of government are shared between Holyrood and Westminster. Are they co-operating amid this national crisis? No, they are not.

Instead we have two rival governments operating totally independently of each other. Their actions are not co-ordinated in any way. In fact, there is a strong political disincentive to any meaningful co-operation: each has a vested interest in making the other look incompetent. Bad faith is the norm.

At Holyrood yesterday Ms Sturgeon unveiled her administration’s programme for government up to the elections next May. There were a number of commendable and imaginative initiatives to help secure jobs. And yet the Scottish government can only use one hand. Galling as it undoubtedly is to a devoted nationalist, Ms Sturgeon needs to work collaboratively with Tory government ministers in London.

There is zero sign of this happening. In fact the UK government’s own plans for Scotland, unveiled this week by Douglas Ross, the new Scottish Tory leader, often overlap the work of SNP ministers. This is stupid. Scotland’s two governments need to govern together. Is this really too much to hope for? The two governments need to agree what to do independently of each other and what to do together. Give and take is necessary on both sides.

Westminster needs to extend Holyrood borrowing powers to free up cash that needs to be spent right now. Holyrood needs to let Westminster bear the weight of big infrastructure projects that will provide jobs and connectivity. UK government ministers need to step back and let their Scottish counterparts take the lead on skills, job guarantees and apprenticeships, because Holyrood is better placed to make the necessary local connections, with the education sector, with local government and with local businesses.

A good example of the potential to work together is the National Grid. Scotland needs better access to English consumers to sell its green energy. Surely this is a classic case of a British infrastructure project deserving British government investment?

None of this is going to happen by itself. The first minister and prime minister need to find it within themselves to have a working relationship that operates on a level beyond snarls and slurs. Ms Sturgeon’s involvement in Cobra meetings is a positive first step. City deals across Scotland have seen the two administrations work together with admirable commonality of purpose. It can be done.

There is, however, one large obstacle to co-operation. It is the woad-smeared elephant in the room. Ms Sturgeon yesterday said that she was pressing on with plans for a new referendum on independence, promising to name a date. SNP politicians talk openly about holding a new vote in the autumn of next year. In Whitehall, Michael Gove prepares for an existential fight to save the Union. In this context Covid-19 is treated, by both sides, as ripe for political exploitation.

Which is why we need a time out. Preparations for indyref2 are making it impossible to fight Covid-19 with the necessary coherence and cogency. Let no one be under any illusions here: continuing to prepare for a new referendum will carry a cost in blunted Scottish lives.

I wish Ms Sturgeon had used her Holyrood speech yesterday to send a clear and unequivocal message that an independence referendum was off the table for at least the next three years while we wrestle with the virus and its immediate aftermath. This is not too big an ask. She has pressed pause on referendum preparations twice before, in 2017 and then again earlier this year.

Ms Sturgeon has still not set a date for a new referendum so there is still time for her to delay any vote until at least 2024. We need a safe space for co-operation. We need it so erstwhile enemies can come together to save lives and save life chances. We need a time out and we need it now.

In fact the UK government’s own plans for Scotland, unveiled this week by Douglas Ross, the new Scottish Tory leader, often overlap the work of SNP ministers. This is stupid.

Slick wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 8:39 am

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 7:24 am I'll immediately declare a conflict of interest as I'm a full professor at a non-Russell Group uni - which essentially means folk like NL can ignore me as 'having no academic standing'.

If independence would achieve an end to the utterly misplaced idea that only 'right sorts with the right tie' can ever have a valid opinion, it would make me the happiest man alive probably. Unfortunately, that very British attitude still pervades debate in Scotland, though perhaps not as much as down south.

Last time I checked the Scottish NHS was in nowhere near as bad a state as the English NHS. That's a low bar to jump, but the SNP deserve credit for how they have managed to keep things more or less afloat so far. On infrastructure, the way in which the Queensferry Crossing was delivered is a feather in their cap. They've also managed to strike some sort of balance between going green and protecting the oil and gas sector, which is at least politically admirable.

In the minus column are the civil liberty laws which they keep cocking up due to lack of top-level legal minds, or sidelining the ones they do have. Education is a worry, although the whole attitude to education in Britain is fundamentally to blame in my view - I'd be much happier with a more continental approach to teaching our children, to be honest. And the Sturgeon cult of personality is abhorrent.

All in all, they've not done worse than your average Tory or Labour UK government, and in some areas they have clearly been better. But yeah, we'd go to hell in a handcart if these people were ever allowed to run an actual country...as opposed to a cabal of right sorts still fighting their childish public school and Varsity wars at the expense of the UK.

Decent post that, Clydecloggie.

There is no way I can say this without sounding patronising and condesending, but I assure you that isn't my intention. But it does amaze me that obviously intelligent and free thinking folk, of which almost all on this thread are, can look at the offering from the SNP and think, yeah that sounds credible. As I've said before I don't think there are many in the country that are ideologically opposed to independence - I'm certainly not and from his postings I'm pretty sure LN isn't - but I just can't see how anyone can look at the bare facts and think that it's credible and that this lot are the people to lead us to it.

On a slightly different track, has the idea ever been floated of the SNP saying if we win a vote we will hand over to a government of national unity (for want of a better phrase) and ask some really experienced politicians to lead it - Brown, Darling, Gove, Sturgeon etc. Frankly, it scares me shitless to think that the current SNP would be in charge of an independent country.

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:40 am
Cheers, Slick. Good to see we're generally not one-eyed twitterati up here.

There are clearly issues with what the SNP has to offer. But for me the question is not: do I think the SNPs plans are credible?, it is: which of the two options do I prefer: iScotland or the UK. And it then becomes a comparison, rather than a stand-alone rating of how Scotland has been governed by the SNP (which, for the record again, I don't think has been as bad as some people say on here).

On some key political issues, there is a clear divergence between Scotland and the UK: Scotland has a clear majority for remaining in the EU, the UK doesn't. Scotland does not want tough immigration laws, the UK does. Scotland wants to preserve the NHS in its 'free at the point of delivery' form, the UK doesn't. Scotland wants to go green, the UK doesn't. Scotland wants to keep access to higher education open to all regardless of ability to pay, the UK doesn't.

On 4 out of those 5, I am firmly in the Scotland camp. The only one I don't completely agree with Scotland on is the NHS one, but even there I think the direction of travel of the NHS in England is worse than in Scotland.

These are socio-political issues that are not directly linked to independence, and my views on them were not formed through a 'Scotland must be independent' lens. I held these values / opinions long before I ever was asked to say yes or no to independence. But they do happen to match what Scotland wants, rather than what the UK wants. Hence me slapping on the 'Nat' label.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:51 am

clydecloggie wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 11:40 am
Cheers, Slick. Good to see we're generally not one-eyed twitterati up here.

There are clearly issues with what the SNP has to offer. But for me the question is not: do I think the SNPs plans are credible?, it is: which of the two options do I prefer: iScotland or the UK. And it then becomes a comparison, rather than a stand-alone rating of how Scotland has been governed by the SNP (which, for the record again, I don't think has been as bad as some people say on here).

On some key political issues, there is a clear divergence between Scotland and the UK: Scotland has a clear majority for remaining in the EU, the UK doesn't. Scotland does not want tough immigration laws, the UK does. Scotland wants to preserve the NHS in its 'free at the point of delivery' form, the UK doesn't. Scotland wants to go green, the UK doesn't. Scotland wants to keep access to higher education open to all regardless of ability to pay, the UK doesn't.

On 4 out of those 5, I am firmly in the Scotland camp. The only one I don't completely agree with Scotland on is the NHS one, but even there I think the direction of travel of the NHS in England is worse than in Scotland.

These are socio-political issues that are not directly linked to independence, and my views on them were not formed through a 'Scotland must be independent' lens. I held these values / opinions long before I ever was asked to say yes or no to independence. But they do happen to match what Scotland wants, rather than what the UK wants. Hence me slapping on the 'Nat' label.

I can see the differences on 3 out of the 5 you mention but i honestly dont see the differences on going Green or the NHS free at point of delivery. I would intrigued to know where you are drawing your conclusions from here.

On the EU and immigration, yep i can see there are differences no question, i would say it is obviously not all of the UK as the likes of London/SE are pro EU and pro immigration but on a whole yep there are differences.

The free higher education one we will see how that pans out as i can see a change coming here. Heriot Watt has already removed Salmond's stone with his pledge on it and there are rumblings on how the Unis will manage to survive financially, so i dont think this is quite the sacred cow it once was but for now it is definitely a difference.

ALEX MASSIE
Caledonian Corbynism leaves Labour for dead
Now the Tories have disposed of their leader, Leonard’s fate is sealed

Alex Massie
Sunday September 06 2020, 12.01am, The Sunday Times
Share




Save

Even in extraordinary times, there must be the space and opportunity for certain traditional pastimes to resume. And so it is that, once again, the Scottish Labour Party is riven by strife and the air is smoky with accusation and recrimination. Even Covid-19 cannot stop Scottish Labour being Scottish Labour.

But although the 21st century has not been kind to Labour in Scotland, it has never before plumbed the depths it plumbs now. Sunday Times readers will be tolerably well-acquainted with Richard Leonard but half the country lacks the knowledge to even offer an appraisal of his leadership — if we can call it that — of the Labour Party. After three years in the job, that is quite an anti-achievement.

From which it follows that the surprise is less that Labour is doing so poorly but that it still lives at all. It breathes, but only faintly. One recent opinion poll reported that just 14% of voters intend to support Labour candidates at next year’s Holyrood election. If that isn’t enough to concentrate Labour minds, what would be? Consider this too: Nicola Sturgeon has lately taken to propping up Richard Leonard, lavishing him with praise at first minister’s questions. Now why, you might ask, would she do that? The answer is an obvious one: Sturgeon patronises Richard Leonard because Richard Leonard suits her purposes very nicely.

Some MSPs have retained at least some measure of their wits. Jenny Marra did nothing but state the obvious last week when she pointed out that, whatever his personal decency or other qualities, Leonard isn’t working as leader. Thereafter, James Kelly and Daniel Johnson joined the chorus demanding Leonard recognise the futility of his situation and accept the inevitable. George Robertson and George Foulkes — not so much yesterday’s men as the men from the day before yesterday — added their names to those demanding Leonard quit while he’s behind.

All of this was both predictable and predicted. As soon as the Conservatives defenestrated Jackson Carlaw, it became only a matter of time before Labour people started to ask themselves a good question: If the Tories can ditch Carlaw, why are we persisting with Leonard? There is no compelling answer to that. From that moment, then, Leonard’s fate was sealed, leaving only the precise details of “how” and “when” to be determined.


In truth, leadership is not the gravest issue confronting the Scottish Labour Party. Leonard has failed, and will continue to fail, until such time as even Labour decides he can no longer be allowed to lead the erstwhile people’s party into the abyss. But merely replacing him is not enough. Labour is nothing if it not a party of serial moral purpose and that is something that has been missing from Labour politics for far too long.

In one sense, however, the Leonard era has been a useful one. For it has tested the proposition that there is in Scotland a large constituency for Caledonian Corbynism. Since the Labour party is currently supported by just 14% of registered voters, we may now deem that case closed. The people, it turns out, are not nearly so interested in lukewarm Corbynism of the kind proffered by Richard Leonard as Scottish Corbynites assumed they would be. This should not be a surprise either, for the people are more serious than this iteration of the Labour Party. Certain tests are non-negotiable and among these are the requirement that a party interested in being taken seriously should be one that is interested in winning power.

In the end, all else is vanity. You cannot advance the people’s interests from a position of permanent opposition. Warming yourself with your own moral purity improves nobody’s life. It is posturing, not serious politics. This, more than any individual policy shortcoming, was the problem with Corbynism.

SPONSORED
'There’s never enough time to do all the nothing you want'
'There’s never enough time to do all the nothing you want'
The fashion staple that combines sensuality, femininity and glamour
The fashion staple that combines sensuality, femininity and glamour
Doubtless Richard Leonard still thinks he is the best man for the job. In typical Corbynite style, he hints that his internal opponents should be deselected for it is their treachery that is undermining the leadership and thwarting an otherwise irresistible march towards victory. Root out the heretics and all will be well. A word on this: it won’t.

But Corbynism, like the hard left more generally, has always been more interested in internal purity than the messy business of doing what’s needed to win elections. Thus Ian Murray, the party’s only Scottish MP, must fend off calls for his expulsion. His crime? Not joining Luciana Berger and Chuka Umunna’s Independent Group of MPs. He thought about it, though, and that kind of wrongthink is all that’s needed these days.

The tragedy of it all is that — in both London and Edinburgh — Scotland’s two governments could do with a proper opposition. There is a perfectly respectable, even plausible, left-wing argument to be made against Boris Johnson and Nicola Sturgeon. You need not agree with every particular criticism, far less Labour’s remedies, to be able to respect it. Without that respect, Labour has no chance of being relevant, let alone being popular.

Here in Scotland, for instance, we have a government more impressed by what it cannot do than what it can, in a country where those who often need government the most are those most frequently failed by government. A country in which where you are born, and to whom, still informs your likely prospects to a degree that should shame every kind of self-styled progressive. A country in which, even before Covid-19, almost every NHS treatment target is missed almost every year and in which, in an ordinary year, the gulf in educational attainment between the rich and poor would be shocking if it were not now so very unsurprising. The SNP want to build a new Scotland; how about improving the existing one?

In the end, however, failing political parties fail because they don’t deserve to succeed. That is Labour’s current position. A change in leadership will not be enough to turn the party’s fortunes around but it seems crushingly obvious that persisting with the Richard Leonard experiment guarantees utter failure. This being so, the next step is the obvious, logical, one: change leader and see if someone else — Anas Sarwar, perhaps — can do even a little bit better. Heaven knows, they could hardly do worse.

GILLIAN BOWDITCH
Big Sister Sturgeon is shrinking our horizons
Our freedoms have been seriously curtailed at the first minister’s say-so

Gillian Bowditch
Sunday September 06 2020, 12.01am, The Sunday Times
Share




Save

The John Lewis online Christmas shop has been open for a fortnight. You have been able to purchase a gold Renaissance carriage bauble (£50) for your Christmas tree since August 24, a date on which, in any other year, you would most likely be shopping for suntan lotion and barbecue food.

But the chances are you already know that. Chances are you have been googling “Xmas garlands” for at least a month. John Lewis fast-forwarded Christmas after online searches for Christmas-related objects quadrupled.

According to eBay, 34% of UK consumers have already bought at least one festive item. Waitrose has seen a 110% rise in searches for mince pies.

Nearly six months into the pandemic and a collective madness has descended. It is taking a variety of forms. Those who are not fantasising about their tree theme are on a tightly coiled spring, ready to fly off the handle at any perceived slight. Or they have become obsessively pernickety, hung-up on minutiae to which, in normal times, they would not give a second thought. Or they are simply petrified, panicked into inaction. Rational adults are fearful of stepping over their threshold of their homes or boarding a train. In six months, we have gone from being a people renowned for travelling the globe, whose sense of collective identity was synonymous with creativity, industry, hospitality and innovation, to a nation whose horizons have shrunk to Lilliputian dimensions.

There is madness at the heart of government too. Instead of promoting a return to normal when it is safe to do so, the new Programme for Government champions “20-minute neighbourhoods,” where workers can do everything they need within a 20-minute walk from their home. This is pretty much how life was before the advent of the railways. The opportunities and ambitions of Scots were curtailed by the limited prospects on their doorsteps. Industrial and technological advances allowed not only the opportunity to travel and experience new countries and cultures but the valuable transmission of ideas. We have a name for this — it’s called progress.


This point in the pandemic is the apotheosis of an administration which has been relentlessly inward-looking for a decade, its reductio ad absurdum manifested by the bigots and xenophobes patrolling the border in saltire masks and demanding that English visitors turn back.

The disparity in tuition fees across the UK has meant less debt for Scottish students. But few students in the last decade have ventured outside of Scotland for their tertiary education. That has been to the detriment of our entire culture. Now the workforce is expected to shrink its perspective to a radius of five miles from home. Nobody would advocate the joys of a long commute, but isolationism seems an alarming solution to a situation, which however serious, is inevitably temporary — or certainly should be.

It is a perspective which will have a lasting and damaging effect on the national psyche. I don’t know anyone who is able to absorb the onslaught of Covid news day and day out and stay mentally robust. Only comedian Janey Godley, on point with their potential for parody, and the die-hard nationalists are still tuning into Nicola Sturgeon’s daily updates. But her tone of endless disappointment with the Scottish people permeates everything.

I am no Covid denier. I have hardly been more than five miles outside of my home in the past five months. My mask etiquette is acceptable. This has been a serious outbreak and at its peak, the news was grim. Nobody would envy Sturgeon her job just now.

SPONSORED
How an exotic adventure sparked a low-calorie dessert brand
How an exotic adventure sparked a low-calorie dessert brand
Here's how to stop dreaming and start living
Here's how to stop dreaming and start living
But the lack of consultation with parliament and the public grows increasingly alarming, the longer it goes on. Our freedoms have been very seriously curtailed. Whole cities are locked down on the say-so of the first minister.

Pubs and restaurants were shut in Aberdeen but not in Glasgow. Sturgeon says that this is because the Glasgow outbreak, unlike the Aberdeen one, did not spread through pubs but through gatherings in people’s homes. But it is not as if the virus in Glasgow stops at the pub door. It makes no sense.

The stricter quarantine Scots face is based on exactly the same evidence as the lesser quarantine faced by our neighbours in England. The decision, it seems, is entirely Sturgeon’s. All contact, short of total hibernation, carries some risk. That risk is different for each of us. In addition, we all have different approaches to, and thresholds for, risk. In normal times we are good at judging the risks to ourselves and our families. Our primary instinct is to stay safe.

In the pandemic, we cannot judge the risk because we are not entrusted with the information on which to base an analysis. If instead of death and transmission figures, the first minister focused on economic figures, or welfare claimant figures, or NHS waiting time figures at her daily briefing, we might have a different sense of what the risks truly are.

Instead, like the teacher who holds the whole class back for the misdemeanour of one individual, Big Sister, the Covid monitor, refuses to trust us to use our common sense and decide our own priorities.

The unintended consequences of this will be felt for a generation. Ultimately, government should exist to serve the people. Anything else smacks of totalitarianism. But then there is nothing quite as contagious as fear.

Steve wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 5:17 pm Two cheeks of the same arse and it needs a good smacking

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:22 pm Contact tracing app available as of today. Decentralised app with anonymised data, same as the sensible countries have done.

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:25 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:22 pm Contact tracing app available as of today. Decentralised app with anonymised data, same as the sensible countries have done.

Just said hello to my neighbours who arrived back from France yesterday. Cheerfully told me they are not isolating. Both Professors in medicine at the Uni. Is there a "dob them in" button on the app?

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:28 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:25 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:22 pm Contact tracing app available as of today. Decentralised app with anonymised data, same as the sensible countries have done.

Just said hello to my neighbours who arrived back from France yesterday. Cheerfully told me they are not isolating. Both Professors in medicine at the Uni. Is there a "dob them in" button on the app?

A wee phone call to the Dean at the Uni would doubtless get a result

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:28 pm

Slick wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:25 pm

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:22 pm Contact tracing app available as of today. Decentralised app with anonymised data, same as the sensible countries have done.

Just said hello to my neighbours who arrived back from France yesterday. Cheerfully told me they are not isolating. Both Professors in medicine at the Uni. Is there a "dob them in" button on the app?

A wee phone call to the Dean at the Uni would doubtless get a result

That's incredibly irresponsible given that students will be returning to the Uni.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:44 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:31 am

I'd also like to see the hovercraft / water buses idea across the Forth, and consider seaplane infrastructure to the highlands and islands. Most people's immeditate reaction to that is 'bah, weather', but if it works in Vancouver, it can work here.

The other bee in my bonnet is about investment in capital projects which promote high tech businesses. There are some things that have been done which help this, the Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, the Power Networks Demonstration Centre, but more can be done. There's a huge opportunity in offshore underwater data centres - there will be a lot of money to be made out of that and we're uniquely placed to do it. We're also very well equipped to develop and demonstrate novel high speed connectivity solutions to rural areas, which are massively exportable services and products. We have a unique ability to launch spacecraft from Europe as well, there's development of this but some of it has been massively mishandled (e.g. the first launch from the spaceport in Scotland will contain an US built satellite and payload on a US built rocket despite the fact that Glasgow builds more satellites than any other city in Europe every month and we have two domestic companies building rockets which will be ready on that timescale!).

Been a while since i've been in Vancouver but pretty sure they have better weather than us, happy to be corrected if not.

Biffer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:45 pm

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:44 am

Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 10:31 am

I'd also like to see the hovercraft / water buses idea across the Forth, and consider seaplane infrastructure to the highlands and islands. Most people's immeditate reaction to that is 'bah, weather', but if it works in Vancouver, it can work here.

The other bee in my bonnet is about investment in capital projects which promote high tech businesses. There are some things that have been done which help this, the Marine Energy Centre in Orkney, the Power Networks Demonstration Centre, but more can be done. There's a huge opportunity in offshore underwater data centres - there will be a lot of money to be made out of that and we're uniquely placed to do it. We're also very well equipped to develop and demonstrate novel high speed connectivity solutions to rural areas, which are massively exportable services and products. We have a unique ability to launch spacecraft from Europe as well, there's development of this but some of it has been massively mishandled (e.g. the first launch from the spaceport in Scotland will contain an US built satellite and payload on a US built rocket despite the fact that Glasgow builds more satellites than any other city in Europe every month and we have two domestic companies building rockets which will be ready on that timescale!).

Been a while since i've been in Vancouver but pretty sure they have better weather than us, happy to be corrected if not.

Vancouver has more rain, more snow, more rainy days and temperatures about 3 - 4 degrees higher in the summer. But broadly similar. Average high in January 7C in both, Average high in July 19C in Edinburgh 22C in Vancouver. Both a temperate maritime climate. They get hit by big winter storms from the Pacific in the same way Scotland gets them from the Atlantic. So I don't see any real reasons why most transport options available in one would also work in the other.

It is a Scottish push for independence but not one that will go down well with Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland. The Shetlands, the most northerly part of the United Kingdom, have voted decisively to look at declaring independence from Edinburgh and London.

Councillors there overwhelmingly backed a motion to find ways of achieving “financial and political self-determination”. The islands, famous for their ponies, sheepdogs and woolly jumpers, have a population of just over 20,000. The archipelago also contains the Sullom Voe oil and gas terminal, as well as oil fields and lucrative fishing waters.

Situated 111 miles from the mainland, and geographically closer to Bergen than Edinburgh, the Shetlands have not always been Scottish. They were once part of a Norse empire and the Vikings used them as a base for attacks on the mainland. They remained under Norwegian rule until 1472.

The islands became part of Scotland after the king of Norway failed to pay the dowry of his daughter Margaret when she married James III of Scotland.

The drive towards autonomy has been fuelled by frustration over decision-making on the mainland — sound familiar? — and funding cuts. A motion passed this week by councillors stated: “We are concerned that this situation is seriously threatening the prosperity, and even basic sustainability, of Shetland as a community. In order to look at alternatives to ensure Shetland can reach and maintain its full potential we, the undersigned, move that the Shetland Islands council formally begins exploring options for achieving financial and political self-determination.”

Slick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 10:46 am Interesting times. From The Times

It is a Scottish push for independence but not one that will go down well with Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland. The Shetlands, the most northerly part of the United Kingdom, have voted decisively to look at declaring independence from Edinburgh and London.

Councillors there overwhelmingly backed a motion to find ways of achieving “financial and political self-determination”. The islands, famous for their ponies, sheepdogs and woolly jumpers, have a population of just over 20,000. The archipelago also contains the Sullom Voe oil and gas terminal, as well as oil fields and lucrative fishing waters.

Situated 111 miles from the mainland, and geographically closer to Bergen than Edinburgh, the Shetlands have not always been Scottish. They were once part of a Norse empire and the Vikings used them as a base for attacks on the mainland. They remained under Norwegian rule until 1472.

The islands became part of Scotland after the king of Norway failed to pay the dowry of his daughter Margaret when she married James III of Scotland.

The drive towards autonomy has been fuelled by frustration over decision-making on the mainland — sound familiar? — and funding cuts. A motion passed this week by councillors stated: “We are concerned that this situation is seriously threatening the prosperity, and even basic sustainability, of Shetland as a community. In order to look at alternatives to ensure Shetland can reach and maintain its full potential we, the undersigned, move that the Shetland Islands council formally begins exploring options for achieving financial and political self-determination.”

walletoraccess wrote: ↑Fri Sep 11, 2020 1:07 pm No one cares about the borders - we're only circa 100k folk over a wide area

tc27 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:26 am Presumably the salient information will still be reported.

BBC are under no obligation to broadcast whats mostly a daily press conference and sometimes what strays into being a PPB.

tc27 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 6:26 am Presumably the salient information will still be reported.

BBC are under no obligation to broadcast whats mostly a daily press conference and sometimes what strays into being a PPB.

Northern Lights wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 12:31 pm We really don’t need the same frequency so can understand the decision especially now Holyrood is back up and running and this is where it should be discussed with the necessary questions asked and answered.

Unfortunately Sturgeon strayed far too often into party political grounds.

Alex Massie: Collective amnesia dogs Salmond inquiry
Questions of who knew what and when destined to remain unanswered

Alex Massie
Sunday September 13 2020, 12.01am, The Sunday Times
Last week, Leslie Evans, permanent secretary in the Scottish government and Scotland’s most senior civil servant, appeared for a second time to answer questions from the Holyrood committee investigating the government’s handling of complaints made against Alex Salmond. It is fair to say, I think, that it did not go well.

Indeed, I cannot recall a more hopeless appearance of this kind. Time and time again, Evans answered reasonable questions with variations of a single answer: “I do not know.”

“I do not recall that,” she said in response to multiple questions. Sometimes she was “not aware” and other times she could not “recall being aware” of anything. “I cannot remember, to be honest,” she said, and stuff might have happened but “not to my knowledge”.

Overall, the message was clear: “I cannot tell you that.” Indeed, on more than 20 occasions, Evans said she could not recall, or remember, or have knowledge of, or know the answers to the questions committee members were asking. It was an utterly, extraordinarily, hopeless performance. As more than one veteran Holyrood hand surmised, if there wasn’t a conspiracy or cover-up relating to the government’s handling of the Salmond affair then Evans is doing her best to make it look as though there was.

Two obvious interpretations arise. Either Evans lacks the attention to detail, diligence of preparation, power of recall, and overall grip you would expect from the permanent secretary, or she has chosen to offer parliament — and by extension the public —a thoroughly inadequate account of what she knew and when. Neither interpretation reflects well on Scotland’s most senior civil servant; each suggests she is ill-suited to the post she holds and that her continued employment should be considered a mystery.

ADVERTISEMENT

The inquiry may have been eclipsed by Brexit and Covid but it still matters. A reminder: the committee is not pursuing a fresh investigation into Salmond’s conduct. His behaviour is not the issue and is no more relevant to the inquiry than your personal view of the former first minister, his character, and his behaviour. It is, rather, an inquiry into how the Scottish government handled the complaints made against Salmond and how it led to a situation in which that investigation was, by the government’s own admission, tainted by “apparent” — though not necessarily, actual — “bias”.

That being so, the timeline of events is of significant importance. Relatedly, that means the age-old questions of who knew what and when are matters of interest not just to the parliamentary committee but the public, too. For, it seems to me, a reluctance to answer these questions underpins the Scottish government’s response. This is a rather larger issue than the management of the civil service’s human resources department or precisely how a new complaints procedure might be devised and subsequently implemented.

Hitherto, the government’s response to these wholly reasonable questions has been as predictable as it has proved lamentable. Neither the Scottish parliament, nor the general public, should presume to think they merit any kind of reasonable answers. The government will hoard its secrets.

SPONSORED
The fashion staple that combines sensuality, femininity and glamour
The fashion staple that combines sensuality, femininity and glamour
Here's how to stop dreaming and start living
Here's how to stop dreaming and start living
But so will others, it seems. If Evans’s testimony — or the lack of it — was remarkable, she still confirmed that both the first minister and at least one of her advisers was present for at least some meetings in which officials considered how to deal with this process. That’s worth noting. And so, too, is the written testimony proffered by Peter Murrell, the SNP’s chief executive who, conveniently, happens to be married to Nicola Sturgeon.

Murrell has told the committee he“became aware that complaints had been made under the Scottish government procedure when the matter became public” only in August 2018. He did know that Sturgeon and Salmond had met at his home on April 2 and July 14 and that “something serious was being discussed”. Alas, “Nicola told me she couldn’t discuss the details”.

Previously, however, the first minister told Holyrood that she met Salmond in her role as party leader, not first minister. It must be convenient to be able to swap these roles as and when it proves convenient, but if this was a party matter there would, on the face of it, be no reason for excluding Murrell or for failing to brief him on the discussions. Murrell intimates this was a government matter; Sturgeon suggests it was a party one. How can they both be correct?

In any case, note the artful manner in which Murrell declares he became aware in August 2018 of complaints “made under the Scottish government procedure”. Artful stuff, because we know from evidence given in court that the SNP was told in November 2017 about the broad outline of the most serious complaint made against Salmond that would, later, lead to him being charged with attempted rape (of which he was, of course, acquitted). So the party knew. And it knew this months before the details of the separate Scottish government investigation were revealed to the public. Yet we are, I think, asked to believe the party’s leader was never informed of anything about this? Come on.

In like fashion, the first minister has repeatedly told Holyrood that she was first made aware by Salmond of the investigation into the complaints made against him at that April 2 meeting. The words “by Alex Salmond” are key, for they do not rule out her having heard about the matter from other people before that date. Indeed, we also know this to be the case, since Geoff Aberdein, Salmond’s former chief of staff, testified in court that he had met with Sturgeon and her own chief of staff some days previously, during which meeting the complaints against Salmond were discussed. Again, these questions still matter and have not yet been satisfactorily answered: who knew, what did they know, when did they know it and what did they do with that knowledge?

If those answers are ever forthcoming, it may prove possible to put this miserable, squalid, affair behind us. For the time being, both the SNP and Scottish government officials appear determined to maintain the fantastical proposition that no one knew anything and yet, despite this apparent handicap, everything everyone did was above board and correct. Once again: come on.