Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Granny Danger]

9 hours ago, Wee Bully said:

I absolutely get it - I’m talking about SNP members and supporters that I know who in the last week have just said “f**k it”. A bi t like me

In all honesty, it would take very little to get me back, but at the moment I’m in a pretty black place. 

I hope you have a change of heart, I hope other like minded people do too.

Given the age demographic of many critics I’d wager that many of them don’t even vote anyway and I’m sure a fair few of those resigning from the SNP are not members to start with.

The bottom line, as many of us have pointed out, is that the views expressed on the Coronavirus about the SG, Surgeon and the SNP are not a reflection of wider Scottish opinion.

The fact that some folk think these views are is laughable.

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

On 15/12/2021 at 12:59, topcat(The most tip top) said:

that’s actually Wendolene Ramsbottom the wool shop owner who was Wallace’s love interest in “A close shave”

Wallace himself is no stranger to politics having served as leader of Her Majesty’s opposition from 2010 to 2015

Sadly the original model of Wendolene was destroyed in a fire at Aardman studios so she now looks more like Arlene Foster

Douglas the Butterman perished that dreadfull day too. A sad, sad day.

[G51]

11 hours ago, BucksburnDandy said:

I've waited a few days to react to the new restrictions as it required some thought, reflection and nuance. This seems the best place for a post of that nature as the Covid thread is a wild place.

My initial view was against the new restrictions and it on balance remains my view. However given a couple of days to reflect, I can see why certain decisions have been taken.

The caveat that I would put in place is the need for boosters. While the ramping up of this has been tremendous, we do need to get a lot more of the population boosted to a point where it is more effective at reducing the effects of infection.

On football, I don't think the decision to restrict numbers at football was driven by the crowds gathering in an outdoor setting. Stadiums themselves are not drivers of infection. What SG are terrified of is the way people get to games. It's full supporters buses and trains. It's folk gathering in indoor pubs, packed in. This is due to the way Omicron is significantly more transmissible. It is a heavy handed restriction but I can understand the wish to avoid the more social side of football.

On hospitality, working alongside Contact Tracers in my role at work, indoor hospitality and events are big drivers of infection (schools being another). Unfortunately there's no denying it as much as pubs, clubs and venues try to claim they're hard done by. I think the restrictions in this area are more fair - there's no need to shut them totally but a return of more distance between groups and the need for table service will restrict numbers to reduce the risk of the spread of Omicron. The big area where hospitality venues are failing on is ensuring people fill in the Contact Tracing details, as seen by the report yesterday citing a large drop since June in folk "checking in".

As mentioned, schools are a large driver as well. However the government have made education their priority to keep open and I think it is more reasonable to prioritise education than pubs, clubs and the football.

If the booster rollout is on or above track by mid January then society should be opened up more again, in my mind some of these measures should be for the 3 weeks only. There will be more protection from hospitalisation built up with the boosters. Some measures may need to remain (a push on venues to be far more stringent in collecting contact tracing details and possibly restricted numbers in indoor venues) however the balance for me would be that we should have reached a good point in our aim of boosting those wanting these.

If it stretches longer than that, people will rightly be a lot more angry with the FM and the SNP. Probably rightly so, we should be allowed back to certain activities.

It's a tough call to make right now. Whilst I understand what has been done, the length of the restrictions will be what people will remember.

The one thing I hope remains is table service in pubs. The Europeans have that part right.

shut the f**k up

[Wee Bully]

2 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

I hope you have a change of heart, I hope other like minded people do too.

Given the age demographic of many critics I’d wager that many of them don’t even vote anyway and I’m sure a fair few of those resigning from the SNP are not members to start with.

The bottom line, as many of us have pointed out, is that the views expressed on the Coronavirus about the SG, Surgeon and the SNP are not a reflection of wider Scottish opinion.

The fact that some folk think these views are is laughable.

I agree totally - that thread is a binfire, and not representative at all.  

[Theyellowbox]

If it turns out the SG have been overly cautious, then surely that is a good thing no? Ultimately any governments first responsibility is the welfare of the nation and so when there is a health emergency they by default should be more cautious. Its not as if any of us have to go back a long time to see how bad and deadly this virus can be is it?

Couple of other points people need to ask themselves/consider. Given the SG is broadly in line with rest of world in response and Westminster is a bit of an outlier, would you trust Boris and his cronies making health decisions over scientist and most other countries?

Would you rather we were over cautious now and had to roll back restrictions, rather than have people die and look back at errors (such as care home patients in first wave)?

Finally, if you are of a unionist persuasion, given the view that it is better to be cautious and have a preventative deterrent in Trident and generally militarily, why would you not be cautious and have preventative actions on health, beit restrictions or even free prescriptions etc? To that end, when health decisions are to be made on wider good, would you trust non profit making entities such as NHS to make the right decisions or health insurance companies such as in US?

[Scott Steiner]

2 hours ago, Theyellowbox said:

If it turns out the SG have been overly cautious, then surely that is a good thing no? Ultimately any governments first responsibility is the welfare of the nation and so when there is a health emergency they by default should be more cautious. Its not as if any of us have to go back a long time to see how bad and deadly this virus can be is it?

Couple of other points people need to ask themselves/consider. Given the SG is broadly in line with rest of world in response and Westminster is a bit of an outlier, would you trust Boris and his cronies making health decisions over scientist and most other countries?

Would you rather we were over cautious now and had to roll back restrictions, rather than have people die and look back at errors (such as care home patients in first wave)?

Finally, if you are of a unionist persuasion, given the view that it is better to be cautious and have a preventative deterrent in Trident and generally militarily, why would you not be cautious and have preventative actions on health, beit restrictions or even free prescriptions etc? To that end, when health decisions are to be made on wider good, would you trust non profit making entities such as NHS to make the right decisions or health insurance companies such as in US?

For me it's all about balance.

Wearing masks may stymie the spread of the virus, but it also stops people reading each others human expressions.

Having limits on numbers from different households meeting up may keep infections low, but can also halt sociability for thousands of groups, clubs etc across the country and make people lose a sense of purpose or part of their identity.

Having limits on numbers attending football games or other public events may help numbers, but it also stops people enjoying their hobbies, which could be a key aspect of their lives.

I'm all for preventative actions, but we need to think about the other side of the equation too, which is harmed mental health, job losses, economy in ruins etc.  All this while we're getting booster after booster as well, with deaths being reported as dying with COVID, and not necessarily from it.  Can the supposed cure be worse than the problem itself?  I think it can be.

I don't think it's as simple as trusting a non-profit over private organisations either.  Organisations and individuals within them both in the private and public sectors will have their own agendas depending on their career ambitions, their personal opinions and/or political narrative and culture of the day.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Scott Steiner

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Vaccine passports were my line in the sand - I resigned my membership the day they were voted through.

But as others have said - I'll continue to back the SNP as there is no alternative for independence to be delivered.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

I'm as annoyed as anyone with these restrictions... OK, maybe as not annoyed as the screaming fuckwits in the covid thread... but there's no way in a million years that any Yoon party will ever get my vote, and look upon it as support for the Union. 

That can get absolutely get to f**k. 

 

[Theyellowbox]

6 hours ago, Scott Steiner said:

For me it's all about balance.

Wearing masks may stymie the spread of the virus, but it also stops people reading each others human expressions.

Having limits on numbers from different households meeting up may keep infections low, but can also halt sociability for thousands of groups, clubs etc across the country and make people lose a sense of purpose or part of their identity.

Having limits on numbers attending football games or other public events may help numbers, but it also stops people enjoying their hobbies, which could be a key aspect of their lives.

I'm all for preventative actions, but we need to think about the other side of the equation too, which is harmed mental health, job losses, economy in ruins etc.  All this while we're getting booster after booster as well, with deaths being reported as dying with COVID, and not necessarily from it.  Can the supposed cure be worse than the problem itself?  I think it can be.

I don't think it's as simple as trusting a non-profit over private organisations either.  Organisations and individuals within them both in the private and public sectors will have their own agendas depending on their career ambitions, their personal opinions and/or political narrative and culture of the day.

Maybe 20 years ago not physically seeing people or going to football games would have been a reason to be less cautious, but we are in 2021. There is so much technology that allows us to keep connected in a way that we have never been able to before. Not saying it isn't detrimental, but its not a reason in itself to throw caution to the wind. As for not seeing people's faces. It's December  if it were not for face masks, a lot if folk would be wearing scarves.

Without intentionally getting too critical of certain football clubs, maybe if folk in genersl and yes, your club in particular put aside petty political scores, they'd see that maybe working with government on messaging instead of opposing it might actually help its own fans deal with the situation. That is true of others in the game too. Yes, we are all frustrated and yes, make an objection, but decisions have been made. Need to get on with it and football should work as a collective to challenge government as a unified base and also to help the clubs own fans by helping explain as opposed to riding them up for a pointless gripe at authorities.

I'll restate what I have said many times. None of us want restrictions, we all want rid of Covid, but by minimising its effects by people who are scared or frightened only leads to increased fear in others.

Where I agree is that there is a balance to be had when balancing up the impacts to prevent physical health to the greater detriment of mental health. I'm not sure we are there yet, but we are getting ever closer to the point where it is more damaging to both health and death figures to continue with a series of lockdowns and restrictions. 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Theyellowbox

[BucksburnDandy]

I agree with much of that apart from the last sentence which is abhorrent. You wait for ever to get served/get your bill at the end  and there is always the guessing game of where to order/where to pay etc. 
Re the restrictions, am happy to wear a mask whenever required (come out of shops and 15 mins later sometimes forget I have it on), get vaccinated, get my booster (early Jan inshallah) and if a green pass was required, I have the NHS app on my phone. I recently returned from Italy and the QR code worked fine in getting into restaurants/bars and when asked on trains. I really do think the green/covid pass should be pushed out more here. 
What I am a little uneasy about is the clear data that is emerging to confirm the reduced severity of this latest variant. If hospitalisations were on a par with Delta then I would welcome these measures but at this stage of overall proceedings, I do think there needs to be a better balance between risk and personal choice. Yes on the latter a lot of people remain fuckwits in this country, but I am moving to the stage where people need to start being allowed to make informed choices otherwise shut businesses, hospitality etc is just going to continue on a never ending loop. 
Anyway this is for the Covid thread. I think the SG are being overly cautious in their approach and while some welcome this, I don't think this is the approach they can continue with if we are indeed to live with Covid in a normal way as much as possible. Where others say Westminster have got it right on this occasion, I would say they probably have however that was not down to a pragmatic and clear assessment of the data and situation - that is solely down to a bumbling, inconsistent, covid handshaking PM petrified of losing any last lingering support from a party of zealots.  
 

I would pretty much agree with you there. I'm leaning towards more personal responsibility also, as we will struggle to get out of the cycle that we are in otherwise.

Suspect that SG are still a bit burned by the slow way the start of the pandemic was handled and are naturally now being very cautious.

The current thought process will be to buy time for more boosters and to try to lesson contacts in the meantime. This will have the knock on impact of trying to lessen any hospitalisations.

Your point on the Covid pass chimes with my experience in Ireland in August with my better half. They made more use of it generally, whereas we almost brought it in to be in step with other countries but without any real conviction to it. As such, it has had a pretty minimal outcome here. Testing being a requirement for events has been more effective as COP26 demonstrated.

With a number of other European countries going down the same route, we're not alone in being strongly cautious. However I think you're right, that Johnson may have struck lucky by his cabinet having no loyalty to him anymore. His approach certainly has more public support, albeit that's probably not a great barometer given the daft choices of the UK electorate since 2010.

And I definitely must have struck far luckier than yourself with table service in venues. Usually I've found it pretty efficient. Strange how different experiences can be.

[HoBNob]

11 hours ago, Bob Mahelp said:

I'm as annoyed as anyone with these restrictions... OK, maybe as not annoyed as the screaming fuckwits in the covid thread... but there's no way in a million years that any Yoon party will ever get my vote, and look upon it as support for the Union. 

That can get absolutely get to f**k. 

 

As far as I can tell, those who have said they're not backing the SNP currently haven't went off and said they'll vote Tory etc in the future. 

The covid thread is absolutely wild in one direction, this is pretty far off in the other, the reality will be somewhere in the middle. 

[spongeheid15]

On 21/12/2021 at 18:12, lichtgilphead said:

Is spongeheid in a different timezone? This must have been posted around 17:45, but itappears to be 19:30 where he is.

Either that or he can't read a clock.

I also see we're back to tiny unreadable text again

 

[John Lambies Doos]

Vaccine passports were my line in the sand - I resigned my membership the day they were voted through.

But as others have said - I'll continue to back the SNP as there is no alternative for independence to be delivered.

Ffs, every other country has them. Stop being so childish

[jakedee]

Ffs, every other country has them. Stop being so childish

Was in France just before Christmas, no access to restaurants,cafes or any other public place unless your vaccination "GR" code is shown.

[sophia]

42 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

On 24/12/2021 at 15:55, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Vaccine passports were my line in the sand - I resigned my membership the day they were voted through.

But as others have said - I'll continue to back the SNP as there is no alternative for independence to be delivered.

Ffs, every other country has them. Stop being so childish

If the look at me-ers would hold the tolies to the same account, they'd never be done posting about their rampant corruption and malevolence.

Instead a common public health measure is the intolerable imposition that prompts a tantrum.

[No_Problemo]

1 hour ago, John Lambies Doos said:

On 24/12/2021 at 15:55, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Vaccine passports were my line in the sand - I resigned my membership the day they were voted through.

But as others have said - I'll continue to back the SNP as there is no alternative for independence to be delivered.

Ffs, every other country has them. Stop being so childish

 

23 minutes ago, sophia said:

If the look at me-ers would hold the tolies to the same account, they'd never be done posting about their rampant corruption and malevolence.

Instead a common public health measure is the intolerable imposition that prompts a tantrum.

Disagreeing with a policy is not remotely childish or having a tantrum. Particularly one that could be argued to disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups. 
 

If you are looking for a party that are better than the Tories, then that certainly won’t be hard to find - I expect a bit better than that tbh. 

[sophia]

7 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

 

Disagreeing with a policy is not remotely childish or having a tantrum. Particularly one that could be argued to disproportionately affect disadvantaged groups. 
 

If you are looking for a party that are better than the Tories, then that certainly won’t be hard to find - I expect a bit better than that tbh. 

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with disagreeing but a resigning issue?

[No_Problemo]

1 minute ago, sophia said:

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with disagreeing but a resigning issue?

If I was a member of a political party, and they did something I fundamentally disagreed with then I wouldn’t continue to be a member. 

[sophia]

23 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

If I was a member of a political party, and they did something I fundamentally disagreed with then I wouldn’t continue to be a member. 

and you would be welcome to share the company of the people's front of the ideologically pure 2021 continuing ltd party 

[No_Problemo]

8 minutes ago, sophia said:

and you would be welcome to share the company of the people's front of the ideologically pure 2021 continuing ltd party 

Or I could just not be a member of a party, and feel I have to defend it at all costs and just vote for who I feel is the best fit at the time!