Scottish Referendum / Independence - Vol 9

[anonymous-user]

Evercross said:

Address the point I made following your link to the CDC. A lot of the 'evidence' being cited is over a decade old. The timing therefore must be political expediency.

There is a mix there.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PII...

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 5th July 00:21

[technodup]

sambucket said:

Evercross said:

Address the point I made following your link to the CDC. A lot of the 'evidence' being cited is over a decade old. The timing therefore must be political expediency.

There is a mix there.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PII...

Edited by sambucket on Sunday 5th July 00:21

I have zero interest in reading whatever says, but I notice it's dated 1 June. If it's the smoking gun you seem to think it is, why wait six+ weeks to implement it?

But separately to that you know what I really despise? The idea that government knows best and you will do as you're told. The one thing we have seen from this is that governments (both real and pretendy) haven't got a fking clue and make it up on the hoof. From the top medical bod (and others) not following her/their own advice, to spunking millions on hospitals which have never been used, to unnecessarily decimating the economy, to Sturgeon using the opportunity to build her personal brand by hogging the airwaves every single fking day it's been a disaster.

It's a totalitarian's wet dream being able to mandate how many people we can have in our house, how far we can travel and now what we have to wear. We already know Sturgeon is no fan of freedom (named persons, anti singing, alcohol pricing) which is ironic when her raison detre is freedom of a different kind. And she's getting away with it in the name of public health because YOU the reader cannot be trusted to make your own decisions and take your own reasonable precautions. A helpful window into how free we would be under her dream regime.

And in addition to the attack on our liberty we have created supine little flip floppers like Morto who'll do anything she says and defend it to the hilt. Angry Karen's desperate not to go back to work in the name of disease control furlough payments and made martyrs of the NHS when there are some serious questions to be asked of the health authorities. What a fking shambles.

[anonymous-user]

It is a relative shambles. I’m not going to argue that point.

Who do you would have been better at the job? If no one in Scotland, which (non U.K.) world leader do you think has done a good job?

[amusingduck]

sambucket said:

Evercross said:

Address the point I made following your link to the CDC. A lot of the 'evidence' being cited is over a decade old. The timing therefore must be political expediency.

There is a mix there.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PII...

Spot the difference

Lancet said:

Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much
lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including
N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks
[eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection
(eg, goggles or face shields). Added benefits are likely with even
larger physical distances (eg, 2 m or more based on modelling)
and might be present with N95 or similar respirators versus
medical masks or similar.

ScotGov said:

The evidence on the use of face coverings remains limited but supports their use in certain circumstances.
...
By face coverings we do not mean a surgical or other medical grade mask but a covering of the mouth and nose that is made of cloth or other textiles and through which you can breathe, for example a scarf or religious head covering that covers the mouth and nose.

The Lancet link does not mention face coverings at all.

[anonymous-user]

I’m on my phone but there are papers on cloth masks in the list too. I was responding to a point about decade old dates with the first recent paper I found.

Efficacy aside.... Why is it do you think U.K. is such a outlier on masks? USA seem to have taken to them more freely, and they are more ‘right’ leaning?

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 5th July 07:36

[anonymous-user]

[Evercross]

sambucket said:

Yet no-one is politicising a crisis.

[technodup]

sambucket said:

So? It's utterly pointless (and unfair) to take that opinion in the middle of this crisis. The apples and oranges thing. Sturgeon is on telly every day doing her caring act and slagging Boris at every opportunity, and whilst not having to take the hard decisions on how to deal with the fallout. Remember in effect she only spends other people's money. As does Boris, and he's going to be spending a lot of it to bribe the ex Labour areas he won. Big spending interventionist Tory, not really too far from Sturgeon after all.

As for what leader, I don't really accept the premise of the question. It assumes I believe in the idea I need someone to believe in, to show me the right choice for me. I believe I am best placed to make those decisions, not some power trip career politician. I'd advocate massively smaller government and much increased personal freedoms in respect of social issues, healthcare, education etc. Unfortunately the inherent desire of politicians and government to always do more 'for our own good' has rendered that argument an extreme point of view, when really it should be the starting point of everything.

Socially I'm probably left of the LibDems, fiscally I'm right of the Tories. Classical liberal is probably the closest label, but there's not really a representative so I have to side with the Tories. Unless there's the opportunity to fk the SNP, in which case I'll jump in bed with literally anyone.

[StescoG66]

G_Morto said:

I hope the people complaining about this never have to face true oppression, they’d never be able to cope.

We will find out soon enough with these idiots at the helm.........

[Evercross]

Hilariously pointless stats in that survey belying the reality that it is about media perception and personal bias? Why ask about Angela Merkel, why not Macron, or Giuseppe Conte for that matter?

What the blazes does someone in Scotland know about what any of the above have done in this crisis, except second-hand via the media, or totally misrepresented via social media?

Total joke.

Anyhoo - well seeing the Nationalist apologists totally ignored the point a few pages back about the SNP catch-22, also known as 'vote SNP, get Tory'. A strong SNP in Scotland is a wonderful thing for the Conservatives as it denies Labour approximately the same number of seats as is currently the Conservative majority in Westminster.

Oooooh, but that will just drive greater calls for independence the apologists say. Let them call and keep denying them the Conservatives say. Push the Nationalists into doing something stupid and self-destructive.....

What's that coming over the hill, is it a Plan B??!!

Edited by Evercross on Sunday 5th July 10:15

[anonymous-user]

technodup said:

o? It's utterly pointless (and unfair) to take that opinion in the middle of this crisis. The apples and oranges thing. Sturgeon is on telly every day doing her caring act and slagging Boris at every opportunity, and whilst not having to take the hard decisions on how to deal with the fallout. Remember in effect she only spends other people's money. As does Boris, and he's going to be spending a lot of it to bribe the ex Labour areas he won. Big spending interventionist Tory, not really too far from Sturgeon after all.

As for what leader, I don't really accept the premise of the question. It assumes I believe in the idea I need someone to believe in, to show me the right choice for me. I believe I am best placed to make those decisions, not some power trip career politician. I'd advocate massively smaller government and much increased personal freedoms in respect of social issues, healthcare, education etc. Unfortunately the inherent desire of politicians and government to always do more 'for our own good' has rendered that argument an extreme point of view, when really it should be the starting point of everything.

Socially I'm probably left of the LibDems, fiscally I'm right of the Tories. Classical liberal is probably the closest label, but there's not really a representative so I have to side with the Tories. Unless there's the opportunity to fk the SNP, in which case I'll jump in bed with literally anyone.

I was just posting the poll, as I had asked prior. You are right it's not good timing, and not hugely different from the last poll about the crisis. Though does ask reaffirm the independence and seat estimates that have been floating around.

Re your preferred leader, okay let me take a different approach. Which 'country' do you think has reacted best to the crisis. Is there a 'small' government somewhere, that has taken the kind of approach to the global crisis, you would approve of?

[Roderick Spode]

Evercross said:

@G-Morto - in this thread we've guys like technodup and biggbn who have polar opposite views but respect each other and have the respect of everyone because they are principled and argue their case. It is blatantly obvious that you aren't here for the debate and have no principles. You are just here for the fight and have chosen the side that gives you the greater opportunity to brandish your fists.

I greatly appreciate the input of diverse opinions such as technodup and biggbn - it's possible to hold diametrically opposing views without resorting to personal slurs and abuse. However, it would appear that my mk1 eyeball conveniently incorporates an automatic filter for the prevarications of G_Morto. A chess playing pigeon if I ever saw one.

[technodup]

sambucket said:

Re your preferred leader, okay let me take a different approach. Which 'country' do you think has reacted best to the crisis. Is there a 'small' government somewhere, that has taken the kind of approach to the global crisis, you would approve of?

As per Evercross' answer above, we'd only ever know about other countries efforts through massively biased media reporting so I really couldn't say. I'd wager no though. I start from the point of ZERO confidence in any politician to improve my lot. The power should sit with us until we give it to them. I'm probably much more American than European in that sense.

And you're kind of missing my point anyway, I don't really give a fk. Covid is an issue, no question. But we're being conditioned by Sturgeon, via millions of pounds worth of TV time to buy into her particular vision of it. That it is the worst thing ever, we should all be stting ourselves, the NHS is sacrosanct and above all we need her to make it all better. I think that is wildly wrong on every level, her analysis is wrong, her solutions are wrong and the blatant hijacking and propagandising of the crisis is pretty despicable. No wonder people think she's doing well and Trump is the devil, she's telling people on TV every single day ffs. She's delivering a party political broadcast daily, with no opposition.

As I understand it, we have single figure thousand deaths in Scotland, about half of which were in care homes and most of the rest being OAPs or the ill. I just don't see it as the bogeyman she makes out it is. But because of her endless dribble we still have stebags hiding behind the couch and businesses going to the wall all over the place. But as I said before she doesn't care about business, Boris can deal with that, so long as she's on telly appearing to 'care'.

[ant1973]

technodup said:

sambucket said:

So? It's utterly pointless (and unfair) to take that opinion in the middle of this crisis. The apples and oranges thing. Sturgeon is on telly every day doing her caring act and slagging Boris at every opportunity, and whilst not having to take the hard decisions on how to deal with the fallout. Remember in effect she only spends other people's money. As does Boris, and he's going to be spending a lot of it to bribe the ex Labour areas he won. Big spending interventionist Tory, not really too far from Sturgeon after all.

As for what leader, I don't really accept the premise of the question. It assumes I believe in the idea I need someone to believe in, to show me the right choice for me. I believe I am best placed to make those decisions, not some power trip career politician. I'd advocate massively smaller government and much increased personal freedoms in respect of social issues, healthcare, education etc. Unfortunately the inherent desire of politicians and government to always do more 'for our own good' has rendered that argument an extreme point of view, when really it should be the starting point of everything.

Socially I'm probably left of the LibDems, fiscally I'm right of the Tories. Classical liberal is probably the closest label, but there's not really a representative so I have to side with the Tories. Unless there's the opportunity to fk the SNP, in which case I'll jump in bed with literally anyone.

As with the lockdown madness, I fear that we are going to have to feel considerable pain before people will be brought to their senses. The SNP could tax us all into oblivion at the moment yet chose not to? Why is that? Could it be that, deep down, they know it will be counter-productive and they will see swathes of people living on the other side of the Tweed, yet continue to "work" in the central belt. Ironically, the last few months makes that all the more feasible. I really wish they would just get on with it and give people a taste of what the really want to do. The idea you can have Scandi living without Scandi taxes (and that is taxes for all - not just "someone else") is just a laugh.

If the average SNP voter worked with the same fervour as they marched and moaned, they might well build a case for independence.

Edited by ant1973 on Sunday 5th July 11:40

[ant1973]

amusingduck said:

sambucket said:

Evercross said:

Address the point I made following your link to the CDC. A lot of the 'evidence' being cited is over a decade old. The timing therefore must be political expediency.

There is a mix there.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PII...

Spot the difference

Lancet said:

Physical distancing of 1 m or more was associated with a much
lower risk of infection, as was use of face masks (including
N95 respirators or similar and surgical or similar masks
[eg, 12–16-layer cotton or gauze masks]) and eye protection
(eg, goggles or face shields). Added benefits are likely with even
larger physical distances (eg, 2 m or more based on modelling)
and might be present with N95 or similar respirators versus
medical masks or similar.

ScotGov said:

The evidence on the use of face coverings remains limited but supports their use in certain circumstances.
...
By face coverings we do not mean a surgical or other medical grade mask but a covering of the mouth and nose that is made of cloth or other textiles and through which you can breathe, for example a scarf or religious head covering that covers the mouth and nose.

The Lancet link does not mention face coverings at all.

All I want to see is what science we are relying upon and how we have reached the conclusion that we have.

[ant1973]

Roderick Spode said:

Evercross said:

@G-Morto - in this thread we've guys like technodup and biggbn who have polar opposite views but respect each other and have the respect of everyone because they are principled and argue their case. It is blatantly obvious that you aren't here for the debate and have no principles. You are just here for the fight and have chosen the side that gives you the greater opportunity to brandish your fists.

I greatly appreciate the input of diverse opinions such as technodup and biggbn - it's possible to hold diametrically opposing views without resorting to personal slurs and abuse. However, it would appear that my mk1 eyeball conveniently incorporates an automatic filter for the prevarications of G_Morto. A chess playing pigeon if I ever saw one.

My impression is that he is a youngish, educated man who lacks experience of the real world. It's a pity that he will not engage and offer a counter-point to the consensus views of the thread since, as I say, he is intelligent and articulate. Sadly he appears willing to accept accept what he is told by others and regards any note of criticism of "the party" as something which must be violently defended - especially with pointless ad hom attacks. The face mask debate is a case in point. The impoverished substance of his argument concerning the use of face masks illustrates the point well. Compulsion at an earlier stage would have suppressed the virus all the more swiftly by his logic, rendering the timing of the recent decision utterly suspect. Even if the SG said, we are not sure it works but the behavioural science suggests it makes people feel safe which will allow our society to open up, I would respect the decision however much I disagreed with it.

[hutchst]

technodup said:

s per Evercross' answer above, we'd only ever know about other countries efforts through massively biased media reporting so I really couldn't say. I'd wager no though. I start from the point of ZERO confidence in any politician to improve my lot. The power should sit with us until we give it to them. I'm probably much more American than European in that sense.

And you're kind of missing my point anyway, I don't really give a fk. Covid is an issue, no question. But we're being conditioned by Sturgeon, via millions of pounds worth of TV time to buy into her particular vision of it. That it is the worst thing ever, we should all be stting ourselves, the NHS is sacrosanct and above all we need her to make it all better. I think that is wildly wrong on every level, her analysis is wrong, her solutions are wrong and the blatant hijacking and propagandising of the crisis is pretty despicable. No wonder people think she's doing well and Trump is the devil, she's telling people on TV every single day ffs. She's delivering a party political broadcast daily, with no opposition.

As I understand it, we have single figure thousand deaths in Scotland, about half of which were in care homes and most of the rest being OAPs or the ill. I just don't see it as the bogeyman she makes out it is. But because of her endless dribble we still have stebags hiding behind the couch and businesses going to the wall all over the place. But as I said before she doesn't care about business, Boris can deal with that, so long as she's on telly appearing to 'care'.

Why do we think that politicians have any power whatsoever to stem the force of nature? I know that politicians think that they do, but surely the rest of us are brighter than that?

[Evercross]

hutchst said:

Why do we think that politicians have any power whatsoever to stem the force of nature? I know that politicians think that they do, but surely the rest of us are brighter than that?

That's the rather worrying thing about Sturgeon - that she believes her own hype. Describing herself as 'Chief Mammy' was a particularly poorly judged act of hubris and a window into her mind that should have set alarm bells ringing. The last politician I can remember conferring upon themselves a nation's parent status was Idi Amin!

It has been said many many times before though that the SNP under Sturgeon is run like a cult, with a mythical figure at the top, faithful followers and the bogeymen of Boris and the Tories (with Trump thrown in for good measure).

Few other ruling political parties the world over operate that way, and the regimes where they do are not exactly held up as pillars of democracy now are they?!

When you see the product of such a movement flip their beliefs in an instant with nay a hint of contemplation or self-reflection (looking at you Morto) the dangers are all too apparent.

Edited by Evercross on Sunday 5th July 13:18

[technodup]

Evercross said:

That's the rather worrying thing about Sturgeon - that she believes her own hype. Describing herself as 'Chief Mammy' was a particularly poorly judged act of hubris and a window into her mind that should have set alarm bells ringing. The last politician I can remember conferring upon themselves a nation's parent status was Idi Amin!

For obvious reasons I tend to avoid news of a Scottish flavour, so I didn't realise this. I thought Chief Mammy was just a term coined on here.

It's actually worse than I thought. She's a , I mean cult, and the sooner she goes the way of David Koresh the better.

[amusingduck]

technodup said:

or obvious reasons I tend to avoid news of a Scottish flavour, so I didn't realise this. I thought Chief Mammy was just a term coined on here.

Same! It was so obviously a made up characterisation, or at least so I thought