Granny Danger Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 Looks like non-essential businesses in England might still be working. A “lockdown” that doesn’t include businesses, schools and universities is not a lockdown. I do not think it will have the desired effect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 Looks like non-essential businesses in England might still be working. A “lockdown” that doesn’t include businesses, schools and universities is not a lockdown. I do not think it will have the desired effect. It doesn't start until Thursday. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 11 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said: If I’m agreeing with him, things must have gotten silly. Which they certainly have Forget whether or not this is sturgeons fault. It is fucking mental to shut things dowm just becuase theres money in the buget for it. The infection rates are already slowing / flatlining. If they go back up at a later date because the SG decided to ignore the data, bury their heads in the sand, and prioritise schools being fully open then that's on them. I'm stunned that anyone would think forcing a business to close when it doesn't need to just so we get a share of the money is a good move. That may have little impact on the wages issue for staff, but it does little to help the businesses that then can't trade. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Todd_is_God said: The infection rates are already slowing / flatlining. If they go back up at a later date because the SG decided to ignore the data, bury their heads in the sand, and prioritise schools being fully open then that's on them. I'm stunned that anyone would think forcing a business to close when it doesn't need to just so we get a share of the money is a good move. That may have little impact on the wages issue for staff, but it does little to help the businesses that then can't trade. Whilst also reducing quality of life for those who could utilise the services of that business -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 Mind blowing stuff this. I was 100% assured by P&b that the furlough scheme absolutely would not be extended and that NS better have a different plan because she was onto plums. This on top of the now infamous "this is over as a public health crisis" has really made me think again about the credentials of some of P&Bs self styled experts. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.A.F.C Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 No second wave then 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 (edited) 47 minutes ago, John MacLean said: What a choice to be given/gamble to take: Lockdown now because the furlough scheme has been extended for a month because of rising infection rates in England while new tighter restrictions haven't had a chance to have an impact and/or there is no requirement for a full Scotland wide Lockdown at present Wait until infection rates dictate the need for a full Scotland Lockdown with no guarantee that the furlough scheme will be in place at that indeterminate time In that circumstance, there is no choice to be made. The rate is slowing/flatlining in Scotland currently, so whilst there may be a need to step to tier 4 in certain local areas, there's currently absolutely no need for a nationwide lockdown and foisting one upon the entire country just because there's money available to do so is fucking ludicrous. I wholly agree with the overarching point you've made though. That money should be there for a devolved government at any point national restrictions are needed rather than forcing them to do so if and when England are doing it and only then. Edited November 2, 2020 by djchapsticks 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 Live from MA TWO WAINS' playground. ~80% mask compliance. Quite surprised its as high tbh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 4 minutes ago, djchapsticks said: That money should be there for a devolved government at any point it's needed rather than forcing them to do so if an when England are doing it and only then. This. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 The only reason I can think of the whole of England being put into lockdown is that a significant chunk of big business has decided it's more profitable to go into hibernation for a few months supported by state money rather than trying to operate with reduced demand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 If Sturgeon had open tab from the Treasury for lockdown we would never have come out of the initial lockdown! 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 52 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Looks like non-essential businesses in England might still be working. A “lockdown” that doesn’t include businesses, schools and universities is not a lockdown. I do not think it will have the desired effect. It basically means retail and leisure is, yet again, being punted. Everything else seems like it may continue. They are doing a grand job of finally killing the high Street. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 46 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: 54 minutes ago, Granny Danger said: Looks like non-essential businesses in England might still be working. A “lockdown” that doesn’t include businesses, schools and universities is not a lockdown. I do not think it will have the desired effect. It doesn't start until Thursday. I’ve made enquiries to some of our English based suppliers and they do not think they will be closing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John MacLean Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 15 minutes ago, djchapsticks said: In that circumstance, there is no choice to be made. The rate is slowing/flatlining in Scotland currently, so whilst there may be a need to step to tier 4 in certain local areas, there's currently absolutely no need for a nationwide lockdown and foisting one upon the entire country just because there's money available to do so is fucking ludicrous. I wholly agree with the overarching point you've made though. That money should be there for a devolved government at any point it's needed rather than forcing them to do so if an when England are doing it and only then. I think the issue is less the SG taking the money because it is suddenly available and more the fact that the apparent ending of the furlough scheme has pushed them into a position where, due to economic necessity, no part of Scotland went to Level 4 today when that perhaps would have been their preferred option. Whether that would have been the right call is another debate. Furlough was definitely ending at the end of October. All of a sudden England goes into Lockdown and the money tree provides, rightly, some financial assistance. Financial assistance that wasn't available previously to the devolved governments and apparently will only be available to the devolved governments if any Lockdown they have mirrors the time scale that England lockdowns for. And this is supposed to be an union of equals? Where we are better together? And what happens if Scotland elects, IMO correctly, not to lockdown in the immediate future just to access the furlough scheme but there comes a time in the future, with no furlough scheme in place, where there is a need to do so? It's not hard to envisage the SG being posed the question 'why did you wait until now to Lockdown when you could have done weeks/months ago when there was financial support available?' 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FFCinthearea Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 2 hours ago, Glen Sannox said: Absolutely disgraceful from Sturgeon, no reported deaths and she’s plunging us back into lockdown. Wave a bit of furlough money in front of her and she changes course completely. Of course it will suit the work shy and cement her popularity amongst them. And lets be honest. Her failure to lockdown Glasgow and Lanarkshire from the off-set has brought us to where we are today. If she'd had the guts to do something at the time then the current situation wouldn't be as severe. She dare not upset her core voters. -5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 6 minutes ago, FFCinthearea said: And lets be honest. Her failure to lockdown Glasgow and Lanarkshire from the off-set has brought us to where we are today. If she'd had the guts to do something at the time then the current situation wouldn't be as severe. She dare not upset her core voters. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob Mahelp Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 1 hour ago, djchapsticks said: In that circumstance, there is no choice to be made. The rate is slowing/flatlining in Scotland currently, so whilst there may be a need to step to tier 4 in certain local areas, there's currently absolutely no need for a nationwide lockdown and foisting one upon the entire country just because there's money available to do so is fucking ludicrous. I wholly agree with the overarching point you've made though. That money should be there for a devolved government at any point national restrictions are needed rather than forcing them to do so if and when England are doing it and only then. I think it would be a huge gamble for Sturgeon to announce a country-wide lockdown simply so we could take advantage of Westminster furlough payments. In fact, it wouldn't be a gamble, it would be political suicide and would lose her the goodwill that has been built up. For that reason, I'd be amazed if it happened. Much more likely that Westminster will agree to the devolved governments 'if or when' proposals, in some sort of form. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiG Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 Ian Brown has rumbled the real plan behind lockdowns and COVID-19 and it's to, erm, bum you... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob Mahelp Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 Just now, RiG said: Ian Brown has rumbled the real plan behind lockdowns and COVID-19 and it's to, erm, bum you... Great news. Let's make it 2 months. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted November 2, 2020 Share Posted November 2, 2020 1 hour ago, madwullie said: Live from MA TWO WAINS' playground. ~80% mask compliance. Quite surprised its as high tbh I think the fears about getting kids to wear masks are misplaced. If you explain something clearly to a kid they'll likely go along with it, the ones who throw a strop about it are just younger versions of the adults who throw a strop about it. f**k them. Half of the kids probably love running around looking like Bane too. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.