Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
Your problem is that you assume Forbes would enact her beliefs, when in fact she will retain her beliefs but accept that they are not the way of the world today and would government for the many
Quite. She's said it several times. Yet HYUFD is ignorant of the fact that the laws have *already* been changed in Scotland.
Moving on from the nightly theological army-bargy:
Who do you think will emerge winner tomorrow? Has Forbes done enough to take it? Or will Yousaf hold on?
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
Your problem is that you assume Forbes would enact her beliefs, when in fact she will retain her beliefs but accept that they are not the way of the world today and would government for the many
Quite. She's said it several times. Yet HYUFD is ignorant of the fact that the laws have *already* been changed in Scotland.
Moving on from the nightly theological army-bargy:
Who do you think will emerge winner tomorrow? Has Forbes done enough to take it? Or will Yousaf hold on?
If the former, will she get voted in as FM?
And if the latter, will this end in the courts?
My prediction - FWIW
1. Mr Y doesn't get 50%. 2. Ms F gets it on Ms R's second votes. 3. Probably gets voted in as FM, *unless* there are (a) defections *and* (b) the Greens, Tories, Slab *and* LDs all vote together for Mr Sarwar. Which latter is not impossible, vide Edinburgh Trams. It really depends what horse trading there is on both sides, notably on the GRA, and how Slab and SLD feel about getting back into bed with the Tories.
But it's a very sloppy probability tree. Not least because (3) also applies to Mr Y if he wins.
Whoever wins tomorrow becomes leader of the SNP but not automatically First Minister
I assume there is the possibility the winner fails to be endorsed by Holyrood so what happens next in those circumstances?
If a majority select an alternative First Minister, they become First Minister. I a First Minister cannot be chosen within 28 days, there is a full election. Which may suit Labour, but won’t suit the Conservatives.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
Forbes will not govern as a religious zealot like you are, but will accept the settled will of the majority
You are just trying to inflame the position
Forbes is a religious zealot, once she gets power who knows what she will try and do. She will certainly start with a rejection of all the Trans stuff Sturgeon has pushed as a start to push Scotland back towards her social conservatism
There has been absolutely no indication she will do anything other than be collegiate on these matters, and you are provoking an argument through pure ignorance and your own bigoted views
And the GRA is nothing to do with religion but then you always try to deflect
It is in the sense most religious bodies reject it and Forbes if she wins will rip it up and throw it in Patrick Harvie's face and tell him if he wants to stop supporting her government, there is the door!
It is not a religious subject no matter how you try to twist it, and your language of confrontation matches your views of sending tanks to quell the Scots
You are absurd on the subject of Scots and Scotland
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
Forbes will not govern as a religious zealot like you are, but will accept the settled will of the majority
You are just trying to inflame the position
Forbes is a religious zealot, once she gets power who knows what she will try and do. She will certainly start with a rejection of all the Trans stuff Sturgeon has pushed as a start to push Scotland back towards her social conservatism
We shall see (or rather probably won't, as my money - theoretically - is on Humza), though it's worth nothing that 33 non SNP MSPs voted for the GRR Bill, and only 39 against. Forbes did not vote it appears.
If those MSPs, which included 3 Conservatives, were willing to vote for the bill proposed by their political opponents, then it seems a reasonable bet they are in favour of other measures of a similar kind, and so if even half the SNP still back that sort of thing, could not Forbes be bounced into it?
No, she would be elected on a platform to rip the GRA Sturgeon proposed to shreds and she would, most Scots opposing it anyway
She is more likely to find a compromise that would satisfy both Holyrood and Westminster. This may require Sunak to overrule Alister Jack, who I suspect is more interested in emasculating Holyrood than in compromise.
Also because the issue is due to arise in Wales as well, and - of course - in Westminster, where Mr Johnson dropped the progress that Mrs May had made on the matter, AIUI.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
Your problem is that you assume Forbes would enact her beliefs, when in fact she will retain her beliefs but accept that they are not the way of the world today and would government for the many
Quite. She's said it several times. Yet HYUFD is ignorant of the fact that the laws have *already* been changed in Scotland.
Moving on from the nightly theological army-bargy:
Who do you think will emerge winner tomorrow? Has Forbes done enough to take it? Or will Yousaf hold on?
If the former, will she get voted in as FM?
And if the latter, will this end in the courts?
My prediction - FWIW
1. Mr Y doesn't get 50%. 2. Ms F gets it on Ms R's second votes. 3. Probably gets voted in as FM, *unless* there are (a) defections *and* (b) the Greens, Tories, Slab *and* LDs all vote together for Mr Sarwar. Which latter is not impossible, vide Edinburgh Trams. It really depends what horse trading there is on both sides, notably on the GRA, and how Slab and SLD feel about getting back into bed with the Tories.
But it's a very sloppy probability tree. Not least because (3) also applies to Mr Y if he wins.
Whoever wins tomorrow becomes leader of the SNP but not automatically First Minister
I assume there is the possibility the winner fails to be endorsed by Holyrood so what happens next in those circumstances?
If a majority select an alternative First Minister, they become First Minister. I a First Minister cannot be chosen within 28 days, there is a full election. Which may suit Labour, but won’t suit the Conservatives.
Thank you
I also assume this does not get tied up in lengthy legal proceedings
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
Everything will be left of the UK. Unfortunately, most of it will be a nuclear wasteland.
Since zealoty is coming up, I saw this just now. I presume this is tracking US attitudes, though the steepness of the Millenial drop even as compared to the general trend is interesting.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
I am Church of England not Southern Baptist, an Iranian cleric or indeed Forbes' Free Church of Scotland
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Looks like lots of overholding during the COVID-19 pandemic. My best guess is that remote medicine suited women in family formation years, so many who would have exited (temporarily) in 2020-21 deferred exit. EDIT: I didn't realise it was under 30, not 40. Apologies. Then it's probably deferral of normal global migration flows. But the point remains: many under-30s stayed solely due to COVID-19, and are now making up for lost time.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
Forbes will not govern as a religious zealot like you are, but will accept the settled will of the majority
You are just trying to inflame the position
Forbes is a religious zealot, once she gets power who knows what she will try and do. She will certainly start with a rejection of all the Trans stuff Sturgeon has pushed as a start to push Scotland back towards her social conservatism
If you are 'not as much,' are you not still accepting you are one?
Oh, he just believes in divine right, preserving the religious settlement imposed by a sex-mad 16th century monarch, and ignoring everyone who isn't a Tory. No, sir, not a =zealot at all.
Having the Church of England as the established church means the hell, fire and brimstone churches like Forbes' are kept in check south of the border
How odd. The last time you complained about Scotland not having an established church you went on about the need for the Roman Catholic Church to be kept down and to stop its influence spreading. I recall some of us were quite shocked.
You do realise, the RCC is not, erm, the FCS? Or the FPCS? Or the FCS(C)?
The RCC is bigger percentage wise in Scotland than in England, the Free Church of Scotland is also the fastest growing church in Scotland
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
Your problem is that you assume Forbes would enact her beliefs, when in fact she will retain her beliefs but accept that they are not the way of the world today and would government for the many
Quite. She's said it several times. Yet HYUFD is ignorant of the fact that the laws have *already* been changed in Scotland.
Moving on from the nightly theological army-bargy:
Who do you think will emerge winner tomorrow? Has Forbes done enough to take it? Or will Yousaf hold on?
If the former, will she get voted in as FM?
And if the latter, will this end in the courts?
My prediction - FWIW
1. Mr Y doesn't get 50%. 2. Ms F gets it on Ms R's second votes. 3. Probably gets voted in as FM, *unless* there are (a) defections *and* (b) the Greens, Tories, Slab *and* LDs all vote together for Mr Sarwar. Which latter is not impossible, vide Edinburgh Trams. It really depends what horse trading there is on both sides, notably on the GRA, and how Slab and SLD feel about getting back into bed with the Tories.
But it's a very sloppy probability tree. Not least because (3) also applies to Mr Y if he wins.
Whoever wins tomorrow becomes leader of the SNP but not automatically First Minister
I assume there is the possibility the winner fails to be endorsed by Holyrood so what happens next in those circumstances?
If a majority select an alternative First Minister, they become First Minister. I a First Minister cannot be chosen within 28 days, there is a full election. Which may suit Labour, but won’t suit the Conservatives.
Thank you
I also assume this does not get tied up in lengthy legal proceedings
Wouldn't be. Simple vote. That's it. (SNP Leader and FM are completely different things in formal law. Not like Westminster.)
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
Everything will be left of the UK. Unfortunately, most of it will be a nuclear wasteland.
I know all about the tanks on the Royal Mile, but he's not once mentioned nuclear codes
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
Since zealoty is coming up, I saw this just now. I presume this is tracking US attitudes, though the steepness of the Millenial drop even as compared to the general trend is interesting.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
Your problem is that you assume Forbes would enact her beliefs, when in fact she will retain her beliefs but accept that they are not the way of the world today and would government for the many
Quite. She's said it several times. Yet HYUFD is ignorant of the fact that the laws have *already* been changed in Scotland.
Moving on from the nightly theological army-bargy:
Who do you think will emerge winner tomorrow? Has Forbes done enough to take it? Or will Yousaf hold on?
If the former, will she get voted in as FM?
And if the latter, will this end in the courts?
My prediction - FWIW
1. Mr Y doesn't get 50%. 2. Ms F gets it on Ms R's second votes. 3. Probably gets voted in as FM, *unless* there are (a) defections *and* (b) the Greens, Tories, Slab *and* LDs all vote together for Mr Sarwar. Which latter is not impossible, vide Edinburgh Trams. It really depends what horse trading there is on both sides, notably on the GRA, and how Slab and SLD feel about getting back into bed with the Tories.
But it's a very sloppy probability tree. Not least because (3) also applies to Mr Y if he wins.
Whoever wins tomorrow becomes leader of the SNP but not automatically First Minister
I assume there is the possibility the winner fails to be endorsed by Holyrood so what happens next in those circumstances?
If a majority select an alternative First Minister, they become First Minister. I a First Minister cannot be chosen within 28 days, there is a full election. Which may suit Labour, but won’t suit the Conservatives.
Thank you
I also assume this does not get tied up in lengthy legal proceedings
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
I am Church of England not Southern Baptist, an Iranian cleric or indeed Forbes' Free Church of Scotland
It wasn't so much the creed element that interested me it was the faith based totalitarianism.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant and with Mr. Foremain.
hear hear , Foremain is a real nasty piece of work
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
Since zealoty is coming up, I saw this just now. I presume this is tracking US attitudes, though the steepness of the Millenial drop even as compared to the general trend is interesting.
The first few years of each generation always look weird, maybe because very young adults participated infrequently in traditional polling. I'd say the fall was not steep, rather the steady-state level started much lower. As for Carnyx asking about changes circa 1990, puzzlement and fear about HIV/AIDS were gradually being replaced with information that made people more aware of how it was transmitted and thus more comfortable with male same-sex relations in general.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
Your problem is that you assume Forbes would enact her beliefs, when in fact she will retain her beliefs but accept that they are not the way of the world today and would government for the many
Quite. She's said it several times. Yet HYUFD is ignorant of the fact that the laws have *already* been changed in Scotland.
Moving on from the nightly theological army-bargy:
Who do you think will emerge winner tomorrow? Has Forbes done enough to take it? Or will Yousaf hold on?
If the former, will she get voted in as FM?
And if the latter, will this end in the courts?
My prediction - FWIW
1. Mr Y doesn't get 50%. 2. Ms F gets it on Ms R's second votes. 3. Probably gets voted in as FM, *unless* there are (a) defections *and* (b) the Greens, Tories, Slab *and* LDs all vote together for Mr Sarwar. Which latter is not impossible, vide Edinburgh Trams. It really depends what horse trading there is on both sides, notably on the GRA, and how Slab and SLD feel about getting back into bed with the Tories.
But it's a very sloppy probability tree. Not least because (3) also applies to Mr Y if he wins.
Whoever wins tomorrow becomes leader of the SNP but not automatically First Minister
I assume there is the possibility the winner fails to be endorsed by Holyrood so what happens next in those circumstances?
If a majority select an alternative First Minister, they become First Minister. I a First Minister cannot be chosen within 28 days, there is a full election. Which may suit Labour, but won’t suit the Conservatives.
Quite. It's possible if for instance, the SNP lose anyone to illness/resignation/etc, that the SGs could block a (reduced) SNP vote for FM but do it to Slab as well for not being fundamental enough on the GRA or being agin indy or whatever. In which case the SGs could force an election. All depends on the numbers, as someone once said. It would sure be interesting to see which other parties decided to vote* with the SNP to avoid an election ...
Edit: *or simply abstain from voting, as required. Which is, in essence, what happened with previous elections for FM, even when the SNP was a minority.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
The problem with this is that you typically have to contribute about 6% yourself though out of your wage, it erodes your take home pay. For a 50k job, you may be getting a benefit worth £8.5k. That is ok but if you can do the same job contracting for £60/hour, it is closer to £100k per year, out of which you could put in £40k in to a SIPP and still have better take home pay.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
You may find that threats of force are not the best way to retain the United Kingdom. Treating Scotland as an equal part of the union may work better.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
Your problem is that you assume Forbes would enact her beliefs, when in fact she will retain her beliefs but accept that they are not the way of the world today and would government for the many
Quite. She's said it several times. Yet HYUFD is ignorant of the fact that the laws have *already* been changed in Scotland.
Moving on from the nightly theological army-bargy:
Who do you think will emerge winner tomorrow? Has Forbes done enough to take it? Or will Yousaf hold on?
If the former, will she get voted in as FM?
And if the latter, will this end in the courts?
My prediction - FWIW
1. Mr Y doesn't get 50%. 2. Ms F gets it on Ms R's second votes. 3. Probably gets voted in as FM, *unless* there are (a) defections *and* (b) the Greens, Tories, Slab *and* LDs all vote together for Mr Sarwar. Which latter is not impossible, vide Edinburgh Trams. It really depends what horse trading there is on both sides, notably on the GRA, and how Slab and SLD feel about getting back into bed with the Tories.
But it's a very sloppy probability tree. Not least because (3) also applies to Mr Y if he wins.
Whoever wins tomorrow becomes leader of the SNP but not automatically First Minister
I assume there is the possibility the winner fails to be endorsed by Holyrood so what happens next in those circumstances?
If a majority select an alternative First Minister, they become First Minister. I a First Minister cannot be chosen within 28 days, there is a full election. Which may suit Labour, but won’t suit the Conservatives.
Quite. It's possible if for instance, the SNP lose anyone to illness/resignation/etc, that the SGs could block a (reduced) SNP vote for FM but do it to Slab as well for not being fundamental enough on the GRA or being agin indy or whatever. In which case the SGs could force an election. All depends on the numbers, as someone once said. It would sure be interesting to see which other parties decided to vote* with the SNP to avoid an election ...
Edit: *or simply abstain from voting, as required. Which is, in essence, what happened with previous elections for FM, even when the SNP was a minority.
Edied, as @Carnyx has edited his post, my post is no longer required
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
Your problem is that you assume Forbes would enact her beliefs, when in fact she will retain her beliefs but accept that they are not the way of the world today and would government for the many
Quite. She's said it several times. Yet HYUFD is ignorant of the fact that the laws have *already* been changed in Scotland.
Moving on from the nightly theological army-bargy:
Who do you think will emerge winner tomorrow? Has Forbes done enough to take it? Or will Yousaf hold on?
If the former, will she get voted in as FM?
And if the latter, will this end in the courts?
My prediction - FWIW
1. Mr Y doesn't get 50%. 2. Ms F gets it on Ms R's second votes. 3. Probably gets voted in as FM, *unless* there are (a) defections *and* (b) the Greens, Tories, Slab *and* LDs all vote together for Mr Sarwar. Which latter is not impossible, vide Edinburgh Trams. It really depends what horse trading there is on both sides, notably on the GRA, and how Slab and SLD feel about getting back into bed with the Tories.
But it's a very sloppy probability tree. Not least because (3) also applies to Mr Y if he wins.
Whoever wins tomorrow becomes leader of the SNP but not automatically First Minister
I assume there is the possibility the winner fails to be endorsed by Holyrood so what happens next in those circumstances?
If a majority select an alternative First Minister, they become First Minister. I a First Minister cannot be chosen within 28 days, there is a full election. Which may suit Labour, but won’t suit the Conservatives.
Quite. It's possible if for instance, the SNP lose anyone to illness/resignation/etc, that the SGs could block a (reduced) SNP vote for FM but do it to Slab as well for not being fundamental enough on the GRA or being agin indy or whatever. In which case the SGs could force an election. All depends on the numbers, as someone once said. It would sure be interesting to see which other parties decided to vote* with the SNP to avoid an election ...
Edit: *or simply abstain from voting, as required. Which is, in essence, what happened with previous elections for FM, even when the SNP was a minority.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
Well you are not going about it the right way by your inflammatory comments
I have far more reason to want to stay in the union having a Scots wife of nearly 60 years, and an extensive Scots family and know to retain the union you have to win hearts and minds, not repel them
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
You may find that threats of force are not the best way to retain the United Kingdom. Treating Scotland as an equal part of the union may work better.
Indeed. HYUFD repeatedly claims that the Scots shouldn't be listened to because they haven't murdered and bombed people. What sort of message does that send?
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
Next time you visit, turn left at Gretna and visit Galloway. The most underrated part of Scotland.
The Saving of the Union is the Ultimate Brexit Benefit
Discuss
If that's how it works out, if only by showing the leaving can be even more difficult than those who thought it would be difficult thought it would, then a benefit of a sort, to be sure.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
Next time you visit, turn left at Gretna and visit Galloway. The most underrated part of Scotland.
HYUFD seems to think he woiuldn't be let into an independent Scotland. Can't think why.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
Next time you visit, turn left at Gretna and visit Galloway. The most underrated part of Scotland.
Fascinating - there are rated parts of Scotland?
I kid, I kid, I've seen Outlander, it's beautiful up there.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
You may find that threats of force are not the best way to retain the United Kingdom. Treating Scotland as an equal part of the union may work better.
Scotland is a more than equal part of the UK, it has its own Parliament unlike England as well as electing Westminster MPs
There's also a role for the rise of organised representation in media and political activism by the gay lobby in Hollywood and the Democrats - unfortunate that it seems like a pejorative term, but I'm thinking of the likes of Davids Mixner or Geffen. The 1990 turning point is too early for those, but it could explain downward momentum.
There's also a role for the rise of organised representation in media and political activism by the gay lobby in Hollywood and the Democrats - unfortunate that it seems like a pejorative term, but I'm thinking of the likes of Davids Mixner or Geffen. The 1990 turning point is too early for those, but it could explain downward momentum.
Also interesting is the rise from c. 1970 - or before?) - which predates HIV. Maybe a reaction by some to gay lib movements and coming out into the open.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
Isn't treating the boat race as important one of the senseless quirks you and I were so keen to celebrate earlier?
That said, it has to be on a Saturday. On Grandstand.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
The other side of the coin is at the bottom end. It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals. These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
Since zealoty is coming up, I saw this just now. I presume this is tracking US attitudes, though the steepness of the Millenial drop even as compared to the general trend is interesting.
There's also a role for the rise of organised representation in media and political activism by the gay lobby in Hollywood and the Democrats - unfortunate that it seems like a pejorative term, but I'm thinking of the likes of Davids Mixner or Geffen. The 1990 turning point is too early for those, but it could explain downward momentum.
Also interesting is the rise from c. 1970 - or before?) - which predates HIV. Maybe a reaction by some to gay lib movements and coming out into the open.
Oh, yeah. Here and in some other ways, Americans were becoming more culturally conservative in that time. The sixties naivety was vanishing, certain religious ideas were spreading, there was low-level violence by political radicals against everyone else - too many factors to separate which caused which. But the seventies as disco / decadence / pre-AIDS / Twenties redo is a myth or a story about a subset of people.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
The problem with this is that you typically have to contribute about 6% yourself though out of your wage, it erodes your take home pay. For a 50k job, you may be getting a benefit worth £8.5k. That is ok but if you can do the same job contracting for £60/hour, it is closer to £100k per year, out of which you could put in £40k in to a SIPP and still have better take home pay.
If you are contracting, do you get 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay if you are sick or injured? Some people prefer to sacrifice money for security. I was never in a job with a final salary pension, but not everyone has the full financial facts which help them decide what suits their individual circumstances.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
This is repeatedly asserted. And yet they can't recruit. Because it isn't true.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
The future of Scotland within the UK will be the same as wot appen'd to Quebec in Canada. That is the clearest comparison, and indeed the analogy is extremely close - an English speaking democracy, under the the British crown, with a history of difference and independence. They had a vote to secede, they did not secede
"The CAQ contends that the near half-century debate over sovereignty has hampered Quebec's economic and political progress. While the party does not support independence, it does identify as nationalist; it believes Quebec can thrive in Canada if the federal government is willing to grant more powers to the province"
They want more autonomy, and they strive to protect Quebec-ness, but independence and all that? Ah, non, too much hassle. Where does it get you?
As long as the UK was in the EU there perhaps was a viable route to actual indy (tho a weird indy in a Federalising EU) without the EU option then indy is a mad dream. In future the SNP will become Quebec style autonomists
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
Next time you visit, turn left at Gretna and visit Galloway. The most underrated part of Scotland.
HYUFD seems to think he woiuldn't be let into an independent Scotland. Can't think why.
As long as he doesn’t arrive in a small boat he’ll be fine.
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
Next time you visit, turn left at Gretna and visit Galloway. The most underrated part of Scotland.
Fascinating - there are rated parts of Scotland?
I kid, I kid, I've seen Outlander, it's beautiful up there.
“I’m not anti-Scottish, I like the highlands” is not entirely convincing by our resident Engelski-Mir proponent. It’s a bit “I don’t hate Ukraine, Crimea is my favourite holiday destination” circa 2013.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
Isn't treating the boat race as important one of the senseless quirks you and I were so keen to celebrate earlier?
That said, it has to be on a Saturday. On Grandstand.
Yes. And football matches should all kick off at 3pm on a Saturday, apart from cup replays and rearranged games, when 7.30pm on Wednesday is acceptable.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
Jim Murphy says if Kate Forbes wins the SNP leadership tomorrow and becomes First Minister it will be out with secular liberalism and in with Christian democracy for Scotland
I remember well the religious terror covering the UK in its dark clouds as David Cameron, as PM, performed the frightful and divisive Christian act of having a child baptised into the dark faith of the Church of England; and when T May was PM, turning up weekly to early communion at Sonning parish church, who can forget the forced conversions of Jews, Turks and Infidels unleashed under her theocratic regime. It will take centuries for secular liberalism to recover.
Cameron voted for homosexual marriage as did May however, Forbes opposes it as she opposes abortion.
Forbes would be the first explicitly anti homosexual marriage leader of a mainstream Holyrood Westminster party since it came in. Even Tim Farron voted for homosexual marriage
The point being what? Mercifully we have a parliamentary not a presidential constitution. And why on earth should there not be diversity of views of matters which have always been ones of conscience.
BTW 'opposing abortion' tells me nothing. Few indeed support banning it in all cases. I have no idea where KF stands on this. I 'oppose' abortion in this sense - I think it should be, in Clinton's phrase 'safe, legal and rare'.
Forbes personally opposes abortion completely without exemptions and was sponsored at Holyrood in her first job by a US anti abortion pressure group which played a key part in pushing to get Roe v Wade overturned by the SC.
She said: “I couldn’t conceive of having an abortion myself. I’ve seen my baby at 12 weeks and 20 weeks but yes, I defend the right of women to make use of that legal provision to access abortion.”
Forbes was then asked if this meant she would defend the current law which allows women to have an abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.
“My position is that I wouldn’t change the law as it stands”, she added.
You try asking HYUFD what *his* position is on abortion. I've never known him reply to that question, except to give an answer to a completely different question.
Ditto on gay marriage.
I want to reduce abortions not ban it completely, I support gay marriage in civil law but would keep the exemption from it for religious bodies. Forbes is actually harder line than me on both
You demand to allow the state church to ban gay marriage. In fact, you demand that the C of E is the State Church and has a role in the State, in the legislature and the constitution. Scotland doesn't *even* have a state church - indeed, such a notion is completely contrary to the beliefs of the Presbyterian churches of Scotland. That is a seriously left wing position compared to yours.
No, the Church of England now blesses homosexual couples, the Free Church of Scotland Forbes belongs to does not.
Forbes refuses to see homosexual couples as legitimate, Forbes regards homosexuality as a sin, Forbes is anti homosexual marriage in ALL circumstances.
That is the leader your party may elect tomorrow and it will be delicious to see the ghastly hypocrisy you will use to justify staying in a party led by a leader who opposes everything you stand for other than Scottish independence if Forbes wins tomorrow
I'm actually quite keen to see an efficient and centrist leader.
You know, the stuff we don't get from the Conservative Party.
Yiou seem to be under the impression that I am a commie or something when I'm actually a centrist dad. But of course everything must seem terribly infrared to you given you are so far to the right you're ultraviolet.
Forbes isn't a centrist, she is anti abortion, anti homosexual marriage. On that basis Ann Widdecombe is centrist!
Her economic views are also centre right, not centrist too
You confuse personal beliefs with reality
You can't deny the entertainment value of tonight's posts.
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
It would be if @HYUFD is not serious, but he is and it asks the question just who else would be so inflammatory and ignorant of the Scots
The only poster on here as anti Scottish as @HYUFD is @Nigel_Foremain. However, I think an evening in the pub with HYUFD would be more pleasant than with Mr. Foremain.
I am not anti Scottish, one of my favourite cities is Edinburgh which I used to regularly visit for work and I also like the Highlands and Western Isles and Scotch, I just want to retain our United Kingdom
Next time you visit, turn left at Gretna and visit Galloway. The most underrated part of Scotland.
Fascinating - there are rated parts of Scotland?
I kid, I kid, I've seen Outlander, it's beautiful up there.
“I’m not anti-Scottish, I like the highlands” is not entirely convincing by our resident Engelski-Mir proponent. It’s a bit “I don’t hate Ukraine, Crimea is my favourite holiday destination” circa 2013.
I am an opponent of Scottish Nationalism, not an English Nationalist
@russellwarfield people often laugh at me when I tell them I have opened wedding DJ sets with the theme tune from Grandstand but I think this video vindicates my position
There's also a role for the rise of organised representation in media and political activism by the gay lobby in Hollywood and the Democrats - unfortunate that it seems like a pejorative term, but I'm thinking of the likes of Davids Mixner or Geffen. The 1990 turning point is too early for those, but it could explain downward momentum.
Also interesting is the rise from c. 1970 - or before?) - which predates HIV. Maybe a reaction by some to gay lib movements and coming out into the open.
Oh, yeah. Here and in some other ways, Americans were becoming more culturally conservative in that time. The sixties naivety was vanishing, certain religious ideas were spreading, there was low-level violence by political radicals against everyone else - too many factors to separate which caused which. But the seventies as disco / decadence / pre-AIDS / Twenties redo is a myth or a story about a subset of people.
The late '70s saw a big turn to conservatism, some of whose damaging effects we are still seeing, I think, which is not also to say that for some people there were not understandable reasons for a turn to conservatism. The speed of change had been so fast ; but I think we've over-corrected, particularly in the socio-economic area, and in the balance between labour and capital, which is gradually becoming more obvious. Somewhat off topic it may be, but this is why I don't think Thatcher will be seen in the long-term as the great and transformational leader that some people fondly imagine.
The future of Scotland within the UK will be the same as wot appen'd to Quebec in Canada. That is the clearest comparison, and indeed the analogy is extremely close - an English speaking democracy, under the the British crown, with a history of difference and independence. They had a vote to secede, they did not secede
"The CAQ contends that the near half-century debate over sovereignty has hampered Quebec's economic and political progress. While the party does not support independence, it does identify as nationalist; it believes Quebec can thrive in Canada if the federal government is willing to grant more powers to the province"
They want more autonomy, and they strive to protect Quebec-ness, but independence and all that? Ah, non, too much hassle. Where does it get you?
As long as the UK was in the EU there perhaps was a viable route to actual indy (tho a weird indy in a Federalising EU) without the EU option then indy is a mad dream. In future the SNP will become Quebec style autonomists
Indeed. And the CAQ was part of a pincer movement. Quebec Solidaire is also a splinter group of a Momentum type. It too is theoretically pro sovereignty but of the belief that that has overshadowed more pressing focus on poverty and housing, etc One thing which differs is that the Federalists haven't folded into one Provincial Party in Scotland. In Quebec, if you support the status quo you vote Liberal in Provincial elections. Whether you are a Liberal, Tory NDP voter or Green. Or indeed Communist or Fascist. They are a very broad Church indeed.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
The problem with this is that you typically have to contribute about 6% yourself though out of your wage, it erodes your take home pay. For a 50k job, you may be getting a benefit worth £8.5k. That is ok but if you can do the same job contracting for £60/hour, it is closer to £100k per year, out of which you could put in £40k in to a SIPP and still have better take home pay.
If you are contracting, do you get 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay if you are sick or injured? Some people prefer to sacrifice money for security. I was never in a job with a final salary pension, but not everyone has the full financial facts which help them decide what suits their individual circumstances.
You can generally quantify all the benefits though. For someone on £50k the sick pay benefit you described above is worth about £24k. The main benefit is that they aren't supposed to sack you but I found that in local government they can be very brutal in getting rid of people, particularly through restructures. The severance pay is not brilliant and the government have been trying for years to make it more like the private sector: ie pathetic. What you also suffer for these 'benefits' when you spend a long time in large parts of the public sector is opportunity cost.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
Isn't treating the boat race as important one of the senseless quirks you and I were so keen to celebrate earlier?
That said, it has to be on a Saturday. On Grandstand.
Yes. And football matches should all kick off at 3pm on a Saturday, apart from cup replays and rearranged games, when 7.30pm on Wednesday is acceptable.
When exactly did Tuesday rather than Wednesday become the default day? Also. When did 7:45 or 8 replace 7:30? It happened, but no one seemed to decide or even notice it taking place.
@aljwhite Google’s new AI told the Mail on Sunday: “I think Brexit was a bad idea... I believe the UK would have been better off remaining in the EU.” Tory MPs not happy
@aljwhite Google’s new AI told the Mail on Sunday: “I think Brexit was a bad idea... I believe the UK would have been better off remaining in the EU.” Tory MPs not happy
@aljwhite Google’s new AI told the Mail on Sunday: “I think Brexit was a bad idea... I believe the UK would have been better off remaining in the EU.” Tory MPs not happy
@aljwhite Google’s new AI told the Mail on Sunday: “I think Brexit was a bad idea... I believe the UK would have been better off remaining in the EU.” Tory MPs not happy
@russellwarfield people often laugh at me when I tell them I have opened wedding DJ sets with the theme tune from Grandstand but I think this video vindicates my position
That is one of the most joyful things I have seen all day.
The BBC really did have some brilliant sporting theme tunes. Just utter happiness. For the next four and half hours, nothing need matter in your life more than St. Helens against Bradford.
I bet you could make an even happier video out of the theme from Sportsnight.
@russellwarfield people often laugh at me when I tell them I have opened wedding DJ sets with the theme tune from Grandstand but I think this video vindicates my position
That is one of the most joyful things I have seen all day.
The BBC really did have some brilliant sporting theme tunes. Just utter happiness. For the next four and half hours, nothing need matter in your life more than St. Helens against Bradford.
I bet you could make an even happier video out of the theme from Sportsnight.
A nucleus of musicians who had played a bit of everything in the '60s, and then churned out all this great material in Soho, for the BBC and others.
Alan Hawkshaw and Keith Mansfield are legends amongst the younger hipsters, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago - see this Islington performance.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
Isn't treating the boat race as important one of the senseless quirks you and I were so keen to celebrate earlier?
That said, it has to be on a Saturday. On Grandstand.
Yes. And football matches should all kick off at 3pm on a Saturday, apart from cup replays and rearranged games, when 7.30pm on Wednesday is acceptable.
And while we're about it, if you weren't watching Final Score and were in the pub instead, the pleasure of finding out the football results by buying a pink. (For younger readers, before smartphones, if you were in a half decent city centre pub about 5.30 pm on a Saturday, a fella would come around selling a special edition of the local newspaper, printed on pink sheets, which was basically the sports results plus whatever hurried journalism could be put together in the 90 seconds between the final whistle and going to press. It really was a remarkable feat of logistics. Improbably, this happened until well into this century.)
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
Isn't treating the boat race as important one of the senseless quirks you and I were so keen to celebrate earlier?
That said, it has to be on a Saturday. On Grandstand.
Yes. And football matches should all kick off at 3pm on a Saturday, apart from cup replays and rearranged games, when 7.30pm on Wednesday is acceptable.
And while we're about it, if you weren't watching Final Score and were in the pub instead, the pleasure of finding out the football results by buying a pink. (For younger readers, before smartphones, if you were in a half decent city centre pub about 5.30 pm on a Saturday, a fella would come around selling a special edition of the local newspaper, printed on pink sheets, which was basically the sports results plus whatever hurried journalism could be put together in the 90 seconds between the final whistle and going to press. It really was a remarkable feat of logistics. Improbably, this happened until well into this century.)
Was a pink in certain areas. Would be in the shops by 5:30. Was the buff in Bolton, green in Leeds. Thing about final score was you couldn't rewind if you missed the scores or tables. Used to have extensive coverage of the first halves. And then just goal scorers for the second. Was the only way of accessing the results and tables on a Saturday at your own leisurely convenience before Ceefax.
@russellwarfield people often laugh at me when I tell them I have opened wedding DJ sets with the theme tune from Grandstand but I think this video vindicates my position
That is one of the most joyful things I have seen all day.
The BBC really did have some brilliant sporting theme tunes. Just utter happiness. For the next four and half hours, nothing need matter in your life more than St. Helens against Bradford.
I bet you could make an even happier video out of the theme from Sportsnight.
A nucleus of musicians who had played a bit of everything in the '60s, and then churned out all this great material in Soho, for the BBC and others.
Alan Hawkshaw and Keith Mansfield are legends amongst the younger hipsters, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago.
Just listen to this. How can you not be excited about the upcoming FA Cup quarter final replay between Oldham and Crystal Palace? Honestly, I genuinely was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miUEHr5wkyQ
@russellwarfield people often laugh at me when I tell them I have opened wedding DJ sets with the theme tune from Grandstand but I think this video vindicates my position
That is one of the most joyful things I have seen all day.
The BBC really did have some brilliant sporting theme tunes. Just utter happiness. For the next four and half hours, nothing need matter in your life more than St. Helens against Bradford.
I bet you could make an even happier video out of the theme from Sportsnight.
A nucleus of musicians who had played a bit of everything in the '60s, and then churned out all this great material in Soho, for the BBC and others.
Alan Hawkshaw and Keith Mansfield are legends amongst the younger hipsters, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago.
Just listen to this. How can you not be excited about the upcoming FA Cup quarter final replay between Oldham and Crystal Palace? Honestly, I genuinely was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miUEHr5wkyQ
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
Isn't treating the boat race as important one of the senseless quirks you and I were so keen to celebrate earlier?
That said, it has to be on a Saturday. On Grandstand.
Yes. And football matches should all kick off at 3pm on a Saturday, apart from cup replays and rearranged games, when 7.30pm on Wednesday is acceptable.
And while we're about it, if you weren't watching Final Score and were in the pub instead, the pleasure of finding out the football results by buying a pink. (For younger readers, before smartphones, if you were in a half decent city centre pub about 5.30 pm on a Saturday, a fella would come around selling a special edition of the local newspaper, printed on pink sheets, which was basically the sports results plus whatever hurried journalism could be put together in the 90 seconds between the final whistle and going to press. It really was a remarkable feat of logistics. Improbably, this happened until well into this century.)
The last one died just under a year ago; my first job was delivering the things.
@russellwarfield people often laugh at me when I tell them I have opened wedding DJ sets with the theme tune from Grandstand but I think this video vindicates my position
That is one of the most joyful things I have seen all day.
The BBC really did have some brilliant sporting theme tunes. Just utter happiness. For the next four and half hours, nothing need matter in your life more than St. Helens against Bradford.
I bet you could make an even happier video out of the theme from Sportsnight.
@aljwhite Google’s new AI told the Mail on Sunday: “I think Brexit was a bad idea... I believe the UK would have been better off remaining in the EU.” Tory MPs not happy
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
I enjoy the Boat Race but should such a celebration of privilege and elitism be a major live broadcast on the BBC? Not sure. Think I'd rather it was on Eurosport.
What if they had a third Plebs boat?
No, that'd kill it. Its rarified air is key to its appeal.
Isn't treating the boat race as important one of the senseless quirks you and I were so keen to celebrate earlier?
That said, it has to be on a Saturday. On Grandstand.
Yes. And football matches should all kick off at 3pm on a Saturday, apart from cup replays and rearranged games, when 7.30pm on Wednesday is acceptable.
And while we're about it, if you weren't watching Final Score and were in the pub instead, the pleasure of finding out the football results by buying a pink. (For younger readers, before smartphones, if you were in a half decent city centre pub about 5.30 pm on a Saturday, a fella would come around selling a special edition of the local newspaper, printed on pink sheets, which was basically the sports results plus whatever hurried journalism could be put together in the 90 seconds between the final whistle and going to press. It really was a remarkable feat of logistics. Improbably, this happened until well into this century.)
Forfar 4 East Fife 5. Newcastle 1 Sunderland lost.
@russellwarfield people often laugh at me when I tell them I have opened wedding DJ sets with the theme tune from Grandstand but I think this video vindicates my position
That is one of the most joyful things I have seen all day.
The BBC really did have some brilliant sporting theme tunes. Just utter happiness. For the next four and half hours, nothing need matter in your life more than St. Helens against Bradford.
I bet you could make an even happier video out of the theme from Sportsnight.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains
if you can often see public sector jobs paying 2 to 3k less that are actually paying more than the equivalent private sector salary that seems higher when you add pension contributions for both. Job adverts should put total remuneration to help people choose ie we are paying 30k plus 2k to your pension
Then you would get public sector job 40k + 8k pension contribution vs private sector 45k +2.5k pension contribution
"The call from four committee members comes as the SNP was accused of lying to the media and what opponents suggest has been a Holyrood administration marked by secrecy and cover-up.
Andy Wightman, a former Green MSP who sat on the committee, prompted the demands for a new investigation after suggesting the SNP leaked the findings in an attempt to smear the committee as politically partisan and to undermine its conclusion that Nicola Sturgeon had misled parliament."
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
The other side of the coin is at the bottom end. It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals. These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?
As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains
if you can often see public sector jobs paying 2 to 3k less that are actually paying more than the equivalent private sector salary that seems higher when you add pension contributions for both. Job adverts should put total remuneration to help people choose ie we are paying 30k plus 2k to your pension
Then you would get public sector job 40k + 8k pension contribution vs private sector 45k +2.5k pension contribution
But it isn't. Because it just isn't true. Especially at a lower level. If it were folk would be flocking to the Public Sector. They aren't. That isn't because they don't understand. It's because the pay and conditions including pensions are shite in comparison. Simply asserting repeatedly otherwise doesn't change that.
Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains
if you can often see public sector jobs paying 2 to 3k less that are actually paying more than the equivalent private sector salary that seems higher when you add pension contributions for both. Job adverts should put total remuneration to help people choose ie we are paying 30k plus 2k to your pension
Then you would get public sector job 40k + 8k pension contribution vs private sector 45k +2.5k pension contribution
But it isn't. Because it just isn't true. Especially at a lower level. If it were folk would be flocking to the Public Sector. They aren't. That isn't because they don't understand. It's because the pay and conditions including pensions are shite in comparison. Simply asserting repeatedly otherwise doesn't change that.
It is however true though as shown by foi requests to counsels etc, the average employer contributions for public sector jobs is about 20%, private sector jobs the average pension contribution is 5 to 6%. Pensions are deferred pay as the public sector bods keep telling us
so 10k public sector wage is 12k and private sector 10k is 10.5 to 10.6k
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
The other side of the coin is at the bottom end. It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals. These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?
As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
Well precisely. These jobs aren't minimum wage. Market forces say so. Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate. What do you think I am arguing?
Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains
if you can often see public sector jobs paying 2 to 3k less that are actually paying more than the equivalent private sector salary that seems higher when you add pension contributions for both. Job adverts should put total remuneration to help people choose ie we are paying 30k plus 2k to your pension
Then you would get public sector job 40k + 8k pension contribution vs private sector 45k +2.5k pension contribution
But it isn't. Because it just isn't true. Especially at a lower level. If it were folk would be flocking to the Public Sector. They aren't. That isn't because they don't understand. It's because the pay and conditions including pensions are shite in comparison. Simply asserting repeatedly otherwise doesn't change that.
It is however true though as shown by foi requests to counsels etc, the average employer contributions for public sector jobs is about 20%, private sector jobs the average pension contribution is 5 to 6%. Pensions are deferred pay as the public sector bods keep telling us
so 10k public sector wage is 12k and private sector 10k is 10.5 to 10.6k
Stop saying it isn't true because it is
So why are folk leaving the Public Sector for the Private? Personally I'm trying to survive week by week. So are all of my colleagues. Wr are all dreading the 2 week unpaid Easter break. We can't get through a broken car or tooth. The idea that we may consider a pension at all is the height of privilege. We don't expect to get there.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
The other side of the coin is at the bottom end. It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals. These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?
As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
Well precisely. These jobs aren't minimum wage. Market forces say so. Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate. What do you think I am arguing?
That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying when you keep raising minimum wage and bringing ever more jobs into the paid at minimum wage level then what you are saying to people is do the easiest job you can find because it will pay the same.
If you raised minimum wage for example to 30£ an hour I am pretty sure many nurses would be swapping their uniform for a tesco's outfit because its less stressful.
My comment was not about how much jobs are worth as such, I agree a teaching assistant should earn more than a shelf stacker, so should a nurse. However as minimum wage keeps rising faster than most workers wages then you inevitably find those jobs being sucked into no better paid than shelf stacking and more people will say "fuck wiping arses for a living I am going to go work in b&q or something"
As minimum wage continues to increase faster than wages then more and more people find themselves min wage employees and they are going to go why am I doing a more stressful job because people aren't stupid
Israeli media reports indicate Netanyahu will announce shortly the government will halt the judicial overhaul legislation until May to allow path for dialogue after losing total control of the situation.
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
If the pay quoted in job adverts included the value of the associated pension, I suspect public sector jobs would be seen as more desirable than they are currently.
Perhaps. But all that pension will be eaten up by rent if you weren't earning enough to buy during your working decades.
Most private sector jobs no longer pay enough to do more than rent either though . The fact remains
Harking back to the earlier question posed by @Stuartinromford I think. If the government succeeds in enforcing a large public sector real terms pay cut, then what happens next?
This graph is interesting. It isn't the older GPs quitting, take a look at the under 30's.
Bunch of snowflakes
Public sector pay is shit though with utterly retarded salary caps - "no-one can earn more than the PM" - and lots of politics and petty bureaucracy that make it pretty bleak at times. Not sure the pension makes up for that.
Everyone knows that to earn real money you go contract and can then earn double or even triple. And you get resentment between the consultants/contractors doing the same job as the permanents but being paid masses more.
The stupidest situation is when the permanent person is let go, then brought back as a consultant at higher pay, its even worse than simply bringing in someone to do the same job as the permanents.
The government think that a lot of public servants won't actually leave whatever they do to public sector pay. In lots of areas they are right about this, lots of people will just keep going for a variety of reasons - ie out of a sense of commitment, risk aversion, lack of confidence etc. I think the problem the government will ultimately run into is that highly skilled people won't join to replace those who retire. Because why would you leave a job paying £100k to do one that pays £40k?
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
The other side of the coin is at the bottom end. It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals. These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?
As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
Well precisely. These jobs aren't minimum wage. Market forces say so. Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate. What do you think I am arguing?
That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying when you keep raising minimum wage and bringing ever more jobs into the paid at minimum wage level then what you are saying to people is do the easiest job you can find because it will pay the same.
If you raised minimum wage for example to 30£ an hour I am pretty sure many nurses would be swapping their uniform for a tesco's outfit because its less stressful.
My comment was not about how much jobs are worth as such, I agree a teaching assistant should earn more than a shelf stacker, so should a nurse. However as minimum wage keeps rising faster than most workers wages then you inevitably find those jobs being sucked into no better paid than shelf stacking and more people will say "fuck wiping arses for a living I am going to go work in b&q or something"
As minimum wage continues to increase faster than wages then more and more people find themselves min wage employees and they are going to go why am I doing a more stressful job because people aren't stupid
Well. We've had 50 years of a labour surplus. We've tried a low wage low cost economy. It doesn't work. Switzerland and Canada are high wage high cost economies. They seem to be a bit happier societies.
Comments
I hope I am not around to see Prime Minister HYUFD. Whatever is left of the UK will be modelled on post-1979 Iran.
'..we believe that gender is neither a choice nor a social construct. We are therefore not convinced that affirming someone’s understanding of themselves is the best way to care for them. '
https://freechurch.org/public-engagement-group-response-to-the-gender-recognition-reform-scotland-bill/
I also assume this does not get tied up in lengthy legal proceedings
https://twitter.com/farhip/status/1639296680096071681/photo/1
One phenomena I've seen is that people securing high level roles at an early stage of their career (due largely to the poor levels of pay), absorb a lot of resource from the organisation whist they are learning the job, and then leave to capitalise on it either in the private sector or as a consultant/contractor. It is an inefficient and ineffective situation that destroys actual value in an organisation, but the situation has come about due to government policy on pay.
Edit: *or simply abstain from voting, as required. Which is, in essence, what happened with previous elections for FM, even when the SNP was a minority.
Discuss
I have far more reason to want to stay in the union having a Scots wife of nearly 60 years, and an extensive Scots family and know to retain the union you have to win hearts and minds, not repel them
I kid, I kid, I've seen Outlander, it's beautiful up there.
That said, it has to be on a Saturday. On Grandstand.
It is becoming impossible to recruit for minimum wage posts in schools and hospitals.
These people facilitate the qualified professionals doing their jobs efficiently. The absence of lunch supervisors in schools mean teachers aren't getting a dinner break. This is far more demoralising than any lack of pay.
And yet they can't recruit.
Because it isn't true.
Now, Quebec is governed by these people:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_Avenir_Québec
"The CAQ contends that the near half-century debate over sovereignty has hampered Quebec's economic and political progress. While the party does not support independence, it does identify as nationalist; it believes Quebec can thrive in Canada if the federal government is willing to grant more powers to the province"
They want more autonomy, and they strive to protect Quebec-ness, but independence and all that? Ah, non, too much hassle. Where does it get you?
As long as the UK was in the EU there perhaps was a viable route to actual indy (tho a weird indy in a Federalising EU) without the EU option then indy is a mad dream. In future the SNP will become Quebec style autonomists
Netanyahu Fires Defense Minister Who Urged Delay in Court Overhaul
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel removed the defense minister, Yoav Gallant, after he called for a halt to the government’s plan to limit judicial authority.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/26/world/middleeast/judiciary-overhaul-benjamin-netanyahu-israel-parliament.html
people often laugh at me when I tell them I have opened wedding DJ sets with the theme tune from Grandstand but I think this video vindicates my position
https://twitter.com/russellwarfield/status/1639331184168833024
It too is theoretically pro sovereignty but of the belief that that has overshadowed more pressing focus on poverty and housing, etc
One thing which differs is that the Federalists haven't folded into one Provincial Party in Scotland.
In Quebec, if you support the status quo you vote Liberal in Provincial elections. Whether you are a Liberal, Tory NDP voter or Green. Or indeed Communist or Fascist.
They are a very broad Church indeed.
Also. When did 7:45 or 8 replace 7:30?
It happened, but no one seemed to decide or even notice it taking place.
5m
Tottenham manager Antonio Conte leaves club by 'mutual consent'
Google’s new AI told the Mail on Sunday: “I think Brexit was a bad idea... I believe the UK would have been better off remaining in the EU.” Tory MPs not happy
https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1640076639898853377
Our new overlords are therefore likely to be LibDems.
Defamation?!
Why not this time last week?
The BBC really did have some brilliant sporting theme tunes. Just utter happiness. For the next four and half hours, nothing need matter in your life more than St. Helens against Bradford.
I bet you could make an even happier video out of the theme from Sportsnight.
Bollocks.
https://twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1640090385803358209
Some big street demonstrations tonight.
You can watch coverage of the protests in Israel in the link below
https://split-tv.co.il/p/il.html
Alan Hawkshaw and Keith Mansfield are legends amongst the younger hipsters, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago - see this Islington performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sOKuzo8nSY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rW6gpLRK5w
(For younger readers, before smartphones, if you were in a half decent city centre pub about 5.30 pm on a Saturday, a fella would come around selling a special edition of the local newspaper, printed on pink sheets, which was basically the sports results plus whatever hurried journalism could be put together in the 90 seconds between the final whistle and going to press. It really was a remarkable feat of logistics. Improbably, this happened until well into this century.)
They're having a laugh
Was the buff in Bolton, green in Leeds.
Thing about final score was you couldn't rewind if you missed the scores or tables.
Used to have extensive coverage of the first halves. And then just goal scorers for the second.
Was the only way of accessing the results and tables on a Saturday at your own leisurely convenience before Ceefax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miUEHr5wkyQ
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=theme+from+superstars#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:a4c227fe,vid:SGIospD9QRU
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2022/news/british-institution-comes-to-an-end-as-last-local-saturday-sports-paper-shuts/
As @Cookie says, the logistics were a marvel.
And the Sports Mail had that damn sailor (happy/sad/inscrutable, depending on the Portsmouth result) every week.
and for the dozens of you asking, yes, she has also done Ski Sunday
https://twitter.com/russellwarfield/status/1640032113758969859
Newcastle 1 Sunderland lost.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1640045735008776195
if you can often see public sector jobs paying 2 to 3k less that are actually paying more than the equivalent private sector salary that seems higher when you add pension contributions for both. Job adverts should put total remuneration to help people choose ie we are paying 30k plus 2k to your pension
Then you would get public sector job 40k + 8k pension contribution
vs
private sector 45k +2.5k pension contribution
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/inquiry-calls-escalate-after-snp-accused-of-using-leak-to-smear-salmond-committee/?utm_source=twitter
"The call from four committee members comes as the SNP was accused of lying to the media and what opponents suggest has been a Holyrood administration marked by secrecy and cover-up.
Andy Wightman, a former Green MSP who sat on the committee, prompted the demands for a new investigation after suggesting the SNP leaked the findings in an attempt to smear the committee as politically partisan and to undermine its conclusion that Nicola Sturgeon had misled parliament."
if you can often see public sector jobs paying a Can I ask what you really expect.....when a job pays minimum wage would you rather marshal screaming kids for a few hours, undergo dbs and get stressed out....or get a job shelf stacking where the only really stress is did I put the cans of peas in where the baked beans are?
As more and more jobs become minimum wage people are going to gravitate towards the less stressful positions for the same pay
Because it just isn't true.
Especially at a lower level.
If it were folk would be flocking to the Public Sector. They aren't.
That isn't because they don't understand.
It's because the pay and conditions including pensions are shite in comparison.
Simply asserting repeatedly otherwise doesn't change that.
Because it just isn't true.
Especially at a lower level.
If it were folk would be flocking to the Public Sector. They aren't.
That isn't because they don't understand.
It's because the pay and conditions including pensions are shite in comparison.
Simply asserting repeatedly otherwise doesn't change that.
It is however true though as shown by foi requests to counsels etc, the average employer contributions for public sector jobs is about 20%, private sector jobs the average pension contribution is 5 to 6%. Pensions are deferred pay as the public sector bods keep telling us
so 10k public sector wage is 12k
and private sector 10k is 10.5 to 10.6k
Stop saying it isn't true because it is
Want your kids kept safe? Pay the market rate.
What do you think I am arguing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DymaPqswpPw
so 10k public sector wage is 12k
and private sector 10k is 10.5 to 10.6k
Stop saying it isn't true because it is
So why are folk leaving the Public Sector for the Private?
Personally I'm trying to survive week by week. So are all of my colleagues. Wr are all dreading the 2 week unpaid Easter break. We can't get through a broken car or tooth. The idea that we may consider a pension at all is the height of privilege.
We don't expect to get there.
If you raised minimum wage for example to 30£ an hour I am pretty sure many nurses would be swapping their uniform for a tesco's outfit because its less stressful.
My comment was not about how much jobs are worth as such, I agree a teaching assistant should earn more than a shelf stacker, so should a nurse. However as minimum wage keeps rising faster than most workers wages then you inevitably find those jobs being sucked into no better paid than shelf stacking and more people will say "fuck wiping arses for a living I am going to go work in b&q or something"
As minimum wage continues to increase faster than wages then more and more people find themselves min wage employees and they are going to go why am I doing a more stressful job because people aren't stupid
Unclear if this will satisfy the protesters at this point.
https://mobile.twitter.com/jacobkornbluh/status/1640102206757130246
Eventful day over there.
We've had 50 years of a labour surplus. We've tried a low wage low cost economy. It doesn't work.
Switzerland and Canada are high wage high cost economies. They seem to be a bit happier societies.