Re: Coronavirus
 

The US and the UK have devolved adminstrations with the main powers.
Eg legally not possible to have a UK wide or US wide set of rules or lockdowns.
The number of deaths is directly related to the behaviour of the people. Eg gather in large groups, and a large proportion is going to get infected. If it was purely down to governments, there there would be no differences.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The UK Government could have invoked the Civil Contingencies Act.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not strictly true for the UK.

HMG decided at the outset to treat this as a public health issue, making it a devolved responsibility, but it could have chosen to use powers under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, effectively treating Covid as a national emergency to be managed centrally by Westminster.

(Edit) beaten to it!

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's imperfect, but surely a better indicator is the death rate per million people.

From your scource, the countries with the highest death rates are:

1. Belgium
2. San Marino
3. Peru
4. Andor
5. Spain
6. Argentina
7. Italy
8. UK
9. Brazil
10. Chile

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pandemic planning was devolved long before this year.
2011 Scottish report.
Imagine the bleating if anything had been UK-wide.

Still of course dodging the US issue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You know what would be great ... if you talked in complete sentences and made some effort to explain what on earth you’re on about.

What is the US issue and who is dodging it?

As far as pandemic influenza is concerned, you might not have noticed but this isn’t an influenza pandemic and it was fairly clear, quite early on, that Covid doesn’t behave like influenza. The Civil Contingencies Act is there and available (and, frankly, could have been used even if a flu pandemic got bad enough). No amount of planning done by the Scottish Government changes that. Their 2011 report was prepared on the basis of public health powers that have been devolved since the outset of devolution itself.

You are factually wrong to assert that the UK government cannot legally act UK wide to control the covid pandemic. You are wrong on the basis of laws already passed, and you are wrong on the constitutional basis because devolution does not prevent the Westminster parliament from legislating on anything, at any time. This is because we don’t have a written constitution with an associated supreme constitutional court - unlike the USA where the legal situation is very different.

There, I’ve given you your starter for ten...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Update from PHE.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...3&d=1605827942

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Scottish report specifies "such as". It's not meant to be a complete list. The report itself says "Natural Hazards (including human pandemic disease and flooding)".



If the UK government had to legislate for something then that is proof they don't currently have control over it. They would have to overturn primary legislation. That would take time.

World Health Organisation
The transmission methods are the same. That makes any precautions the same.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’ve misinterpreted the post Chris made.

All Coronavirus restrictions require legislation - the Coronavirus Act 2020 and Coronavirus (Scotland) Act and associated secondary legislation are the legislative vehicles for the restrictions that are in law.

However the UK Parliament can, at any time, legislate on a matter considered devolved with or without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. By convention this is not normally done without consent and a process exists whereby the Scottish Parliament can give consent for the UK Parliament to do so - usually on matters uncontroversial to save time and reduce complexity.

Separately, the Civil Contingencies Act (as opposed to public health regulations) could have been used which can give greater power to the UK Government and it’s Ministers during the pandemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Jfman has ably rebutted this nonsense. You’re fixating on the wrong part of the problem - it makes no difference what similarities or differences exist between an influenza strain and SARS-CoV-2, as I said above. The UK government can act regardless. The Scottish Government has quite rightly made plans for dealing with an influenza pandemic because that is its responsibility under devolved public health law. The civil contingencies act, however, can be used to override this because it is a UK wide piece of legislation.

The Civil Contingencies Act is activated by an Order in Council. The powers exist; they have already been legislated for. No significant parliamentary time is required.

If further legislation is needed later, then in emergencies it can be dealt with in only a couple of days.

As to why they didn’t use the CCA, I think it is most likely they didn’t think it would become serious enough to warrant the use of what is after all really designed to counter existential threats to our national life. Their reason for doing it would have been to dodge the problems caused by the devolution settlement, which has not adequately considered how crises like this should be dealt with. Doing it to get round devolution would have carried a political cost, especially with all four nations under different political control.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Although equally powers under the Civil Contingencies Act also carry greater opportunities for scrutiny than the public health regulations being used. Arguments have been made that the CCA was not used to get around this.

That said the case for keeping the devolved administrations in the tent rather than outside it slinging mud is compelling.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wee Krankie cranking it up.

You can only screw the top down on the pressure cooker so far before it blows.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hyperbole, or what?