|
Which Thread Title shall we name this new thread? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Independence Day 2: Resturgeonce |
|
44 | 21.36% |
| ScotPol - Unclustering this gently caress |
|
19 | 9.22% |
| Trainspotting 2: Independence is my heroin |
|
9 | 4.37% |
| Indyref II: Boris hosed a Dead Country |
|
14 | 6.80% |
| ScotPol: Wings over Bullshit |
|
8 | 3.88% |
| Independence 2: Cameron Lied, UK Died |
|
24 | 11.65% |
| Scotpol IV: I Vow To Flee My Country |
|
14 | 6.80% |
| ScotPol - A twice in a generation thread |
|
17 | 8.25% |
| ScotPol - Where Everything's hosed Up and the Referendums Don't Matter |
|
15 | 7.28% |
| ScotPol Thread: Dependence Referendum Incoming |
|
2 | 0.97% |
| Indyref II: The Scottish Insturgeoncy |
|
10 | 4.85% |
| ScotPol Thread: Act of European Union |
|
5 | 2.43% |
| ScotPol - Like Game of Thrones only we wish we would all die |
|
25 | 12.14% |
| Total: | 206 votes | ||
|
PiCroft posted:I strongly suspect that a second indyref would fail to pass. Emotions are high right now, everything is in flux and the dust is still settling - when/if a second ref comes about, we'd necessarily have to revisit all the old arguments that sprang up in the first one (albeit with the EU situation significantly changed). Economics, currency (really, would Scotland want to change to the Euro? I'm not entirely sure), the deficit and building a border between us and England. I largely agree with you, and this is similar to what I meant in the previous thread when I said that I don't think Yes have won the argument, but the more I think about it, the more I suspect the EU issue could fundamentally realign the campaign to Yes's benefit. The choice now isn't between staying in the UK or an independence whose claimed advantages were often either ill-defined or based on a vague sense of Scottish exceptionalism whose logic - if certainly not its practice - had the famiiiar echo of "taking our country back". Instead, with any new indyref the Yes camp (and this seems to be the way the SNP are headed) can - and in my opinion should - frame the debate as a clear choice between two different, incompatible, but fundamentally known and tangible political and economic unions. It won't convince everyone of course - and may even deter some of the 40% of the country who voted leave (many of whom voted Yes initially) - but I think it's a much stronger basis for a debate than Yes had previously.
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:This could be tricky because of the objectively greater importance of the British union to the Scottish economy than the European one. baronvonsabre posted:It won't be won on the basis of the economy. There's a stronger argument the SNP are now able to make, even just implicitly; that a vote to stay in Britain is a vote for intolerance and racism and hatred of anyone not English; while a vote for independence is a vote for constructive cooperation with Europe and the world, looking outwards to a world and the future, rather than being forced against our will to wallow in England's nostalgia for an empire that died long ago. we've just seen how a similar argument based on absolutely nothing won, this one actually has some substance to it. I think you're both right, and I should probably have stressed that while the economic case for independence is more tangible (if, as pissflaps says, not exactly any better given the importance of the UK to the Scottish economy) I don't think it's the be-all and end-all, hence talking about the two "political and economic unions" on offer, with the former term is just as important as the latter. Framing it as "heart v head" isn't very useful I think, because "political" (meaning both formal political ties as well as looser social and cultural affiliations and commonalities) isn't just wooly feelings to be contrasted with cold and clinical economic rationalism. Whereas independence could previously (and with some justification) be argued to be the politically insular option, that's certainly not the case now. There's also what you might call the social aspect: leave won on a campaign that was, to a large degree, overtly xenophobic. While I don't believe that Scots are just inherently much better people, it seems pretty clear that our political culture is different enough in both form and content that defining yourself against such overt xenophobia could be a (net) vote winner - and I think it would be fairly straightforward to frame a Yes vote like that, as baronvonsabre suggests.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Acaila posted:I only recognise three names there - the MEPs and Muscatelli, who IIRC everyone hates? I don't know about the wider world, but Muscatelli is pretty despised within the University by everyone I know who isn't in upper management (granted, this isn't exactly comprehensive). Not sure about the others, but John Kay is a very well-regarded economist and regular FT columnist. I'm not 100% sure, but he may also have been a part of Salmond's much-hyped but essentially pointless economic advisor think tank thing. EDIT: IceAgeComing posted:yeah everyone does; although I've forgotten why Within the university it's largely to do with the huge opposition to the restructuring that's gone on, a sense amongst academics that upper management really don't give a poo poo about teaching or students except as a source of income, and a long-running (and still ongoing) dispute about pay and conditions. There's been several bouts of strike action over the last 3 years or so, with the current aims being: quote:address the 14.9% loss in pay versus inflation since 2009 Niric fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
loving hell, Chewin' the Fat is even worse than I remembered.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:It's ok, I'm party Scottish. Is that like being a social smoker?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Never mind the politics of it, this is a clever little take on events
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
Hey, Twitter people: is there any particular accounts you'd recommend following for interesting or breaking news/views on Scottish politics/culture/social issues?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:@GrayInGlasgow Thanks for this. Already following most politicians of interest/job relevance, but Neil Slorance was a new one! [EDIT: most elected politicians I should say. If you know any interesting activist/policy types, that'd be great] Niric fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jul 8, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Scottish Twitter lawyers are a pro follow, especially for land reform and constitutional issues. I'd recommend @PeatWorrier @loveandgarbage @trewloy @MalcolmCombe @profchalmers. These are perfect, thanks! One thing though, is @loveandgarbage now called something else? Account with that name seems to be inactive
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
Acaila posted:Since we're bereft for a while of the argumentative bunch, I thought I'd class up the thread with some poetry on the theme of Brexit and Scottish identity: http://www.front-step.co.uk/2016/07/10/the-first-time-she-saw-a-ciabatta/ David Greig is a good lad. For some academic navel-gaving: the line "Scottish plays peformed in Prague" stuck out for being a bit out of place, since it's the only one in that part which isn't "narrator encounters euro-thing in Scotland" - I've a sneaking suspicion that's a nod to Clare Wallace, who literally wrote the book on David Greig and is based in Prague
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Still gutted I missed The Events a couple of years ago at the Fringe; I know someone who was vaguely involved in commissioning it, and it sounded amazing. Your post also sent me to his wiki, and I'd totally forgotten he's the new artistic director at the Lyceum. Really looking forward to seeing what he puts on....and also looking forward to when he moves on to the Citz because that's surely the next step, right?* * nothing against Dominic Hill who's put of a lot of great stuff, even if he insists on no-back-wall-and-no-wings-actors-playing-instruments-exposing-the-workings-and-artificiality-of-theatre for every single drat play he directs. And I say that as someone who mostly likes gimmicky postmodernism. Fever Dream: Southside and his Hamlet were brilliant though, so it's a small price to pay
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 20:14
|
|
|
Acaila posted:I didn't see Lanark and felt like I missed out Not to make you feel worse, but Lanark was phenomenal. Not 100% sure if it would make a lick of sense if you haven't read the book, but it was a great piece of theatre, and the way it was structured - three distinct acts, two intervals and with the "realistic" act the most abstract in presentation - meant that it never sagged, which for a 3 1/2 - 4 hour play is unbelievably impressive. The Citz has had a really great programme for the last few years, but this Autumn's is slightly unimaginative - and seems to have a slightly mis-timed "SCOTLAND!!!" theme. It's not bad or anything though: Glasgow Girls (which is great and all - and by David Greig! - but it's been on twice already in the last few years), Trainspotting (the play adaptation pre-dates the film, but unless it's a radically unusual production it seems a bit, I dunno, uninteresting for the Citizens), the Rivals (which I know very little about, but I'm an 18th century nerd so the prospect of Georgian sensibilities filtered through Dominic Hill is appealing) and Cheviot (which of course I'll go see again)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Acaila posted:My favourite news story of the day - Knit your way out of prison, aka the judge that says "Did ye, aye?" A legal system based around mod challenges? I'm alright with that
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Chas McGill posted:I don't think the challenge was specific enough. She should have been asked to knit a jumper with a depiction of the incident to a high degree of realism. The next trend in hipster jumpers: portraits of low level social discord Niric fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Extreme Poverty is becoming the norm. Personally If I was a blairite I would prefer gentle poverty like the gentle austerity program While I get that the last 6 years of austerity and welfare "reform" are a key factor here, it's annoying that the SNP/Scottish Government response to growing poverty in Scotland is a literal "it's all Westminster's fault and there's nothing we can do." Which is absolute crap. It's the same do-nothing-blame-someone-else routine from a party that's been in power for almost a decade. The SNP's record on the economy has been piss poor, and it pisses me off that they never get pulled up on this.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Except none of that is true? This bit: quote:the last 6 years of austerity and welfare "reform" are a key factor here Is true: quote:"gaps in income for CAB clients are most often caused by the benefits system." This bit: quote:the SNP/Scottish Government response to growing poverty in Scotland is a literal "it's all Westminster's fault and there's nothing we can do." Is true: quote:a spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said: “We share CAS’ concerns about poverty in Scotland. “We are being forced to spend £100 million a year tackling the effects of UK Government welfare cuts when this money should be spent lifting people out of poverty." This bit: quote:Which is absolute crap. Is true This bit: quote:It's the same do-nothing-blame-someone-else routine from a party that's been in power for almost a decade. The SNP's record on the economy has been piss poor Is also true. This bit: quote:it pisses me off that they never get pulled up on this. Is my opinion, coupled with a negative claim which are, famously, very hard to prove. If you're going to insist on continually doing zero effort, zero content posts that mindlessly (and without any actual argument) defend the government, you could least occasionally make them funny or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Acaila posted:On a totally different note (hehe note, see what I did there?) I'd be up for this. Not mark Thomas though- I've got tickets for him already! tithin posted:I appreciate it. Agreed
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Please, Coohoolin isn't even the biggest mindless nationalist HTB in Aberdeen. He's got a long way to go before he can aspire to be Peter Dow. I know he's not that bad (see ukmt for people who are that bad), but the posts with no substance or argument are frustrating, and it'd be good if the scotpol thread could rise above "X is poo poo/no, X is great" Because there's enough of that elsewhere
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:It's just as lazy to simply accuse them of "always blaming Westminster" instead of actually doing something. That's an empirical claim you've made, attributing blame to the Scottish government, and you're claiming stuff like "we're being forced to alleviate Westminster cuts" isn't true, I guess? In that Herald story they literally blame Westminster and say they can't do anything. The Scottish government has many, many powers and tools they can use to influence the economy. Yes, borrowing powers and more control over taxation would give them more tools, but these are not the be all and end all of government intervention (and that's not even getting into your problematic use of "effective" with respect to tax varying powers). That they are still, after a decade in power, claiming that they don't have the means or the political will to influence the Scottish economy - and that people like you accept this as a reasonable thing for a government to claim - is mind boggling. And let's not forget they recently campaigned on the promise of doing nothing with the new "effective" powers regarding current levels of taxes. The Scottish government's record on the economy is not impressive. It doesn't even compare favourably with rUK. Look at my post in the previous thread I just linked to, look at the Fraser of Allander Institute report it refers to. Absolving a national government, even one partially limited by its position within a larger political and economic framework, for all responsibility for the state of that nation's economy is absurd, yet this is exactly what you're doing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
keep punching joe posted:Too high up for the wee man to reach. Patrick Harvie knows how to get high
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I can't think of anything remotely plausible that she could offer us that would make up for Brexit. Not that I've given it a great deal of thought or anything, but would May have much to lose by offering full fiscal autonomy? It might make her look a little weak, but I suspect that would be short lived and could easily be spun into generosity/decentralisation/"look how canny and conciliatory Theresa is". The effect on the UK finances would be relatively minimal in the grand scheme of things wouldn't it? It's a tangible step towards independence, but if it prevents another Indy ref (assuming there's a possibility of yes this time) in the next 5-10 years then it seems like a relatively cheap bit of can kicking for May.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:If the UK doesn't come up with a deal that involves free movement with the EU and there is a second referendum, Scots will be asked to choose between free movement to and from the eu, or free movement to and from the UK. Would be an interesting choice. It would be. It doesn't really fit most classical political pigeon holing; it's "post-ideological" in a way, since no one is disagreeing about whether free movement is good, they just disagree where the boundary on that movement should be. I could be convinced otherwise, but from this angle it looks a lot like the triumph of identity politics over all other forms of political association: the key question, perhaps the only question, is are you Scottish and British or Scottish and European?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Tomorrow's National headline claims the SNP are announcing a new currency for an independent Scotland. Not quite as concrete as that yet, but an interesting development. The Herald are reporting that "senior SNP MPs are reviewing the party’s currency position and a report is expected to be issued to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Thinking about the implications of brexit, are there any real life examples of "federalised" immigration policies, or any interesting pieces that talk about something similar? Not that it would placate the SNP, and I suspect the immigration "debate" is so toxic right now that no PM will want to wade in with much more than platitudes, but separate immigration policies in Scotland and england might be technically possible, if obviously extremely complicated. I'm curious if there's (m)any practical mechanisms that already exist and could be applied to a Scottish context; for example, visas allowing the right to work in one state/region/place of a common travel area (whether national or inter-national) but not another, or if such a thing is too logistically problematic to bother with.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
While I don't think this is as damning as the Herald wants it to be - using historical papers rather than new analysis isn't itself particularly awful - it definitely smacks of the civil service being given the answer first and told to justify it. 5 days is a ridiculously short amount of time to produce a paper on something like this, and 4 pages to "analyse" a major economic policy is absurd. It also smacks of politicians being blatantly misleading about the strength and quality of the grounds their own argument is based on, but that's a given (see also, "we have taken legal advice") SNP Government analysis behind 50p tax policy branded a 'fiction' quote:ANALYSIS behind the SNP Government’s policy of freezing the top rate of income tax was produced in less than a week and was not based on new research.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
I imagine most people here look at the UKMT, but cross posting anyway as this thread isn't exactly bursting with life!quote:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
marktheando posted:If Jedit said the SNP were pro independence I'd ask for another source. If anything, Jedit is being charitable to the SNP there. Decontextualised, the very welcome and necessary council house building, however limited, is still a marked improvement on prior administrations and it's easy to see how and why it's being used to score political points. If you look at overall figures for the sector however, it's much harder to conclude that under the SNP the housing situation has improved. As for polling, the comprehensive What Scotland Thinks (feat. everyone's favourite rock star pollster John Curtice) doesn't appear to have been updated since May. While there's been a couple of polls these were both immediately following the EUref, so I'm sceptical how indicative these are. There's been several polls showing a majority in favour of a second referendum, but that seems to be about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
I'm broadly in favour of STV, but without any details - especially about constituency size and whether they'll be multi member - it's impossible to say anything about the proposal. I've a sneaking suspicion someone has crunched the numbers and figures this will screw labour without changing the SNP's share of MSPs too much, but that's based solely on cynicism. It'll be interesting to see what the electoral reform society say about it. List of Demands from the Scottish Government over Brexit and a Second Indyref SNP call to Protect students from EU states in the exchange program Brexit has to be the SNP PR team's dream come true. That's not a slight; it's just made their job an awful lot easier, since they can basically just list good things we get from the EU and say independence is necessary to keep them. Barnett? Never knew her Barnett puts the SNP (and any Scottish MP) in a slightly awkward position. In terms of speaking for your constituents it makes perfect sense to demand it stays, but it's basically impossible to justify except as FYGM.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
BBC news for Glasgow and the west of Scotland is a bit, I don't know, morbid today. Aside from the obvious sadness, it does seem a bit weird that the three top stories for a region of 1.5ish million people are just variants on "man dies." Is it really that newsworthy? Man found dead at industrial estate Man dies and boys injured in crash Scot dies in fall from flats in Ibiza EDIT: so here's something else instead: New Report: Scottish Currency Options post-Brexit quote:New Common Weal report argues that an independent currency pegged to Sterling likely to be most advantageous initially for the purposes of confidence and stability, but over long-term flexibility needed Niric fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Jul 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:This was the most loving stupidest time to state this. This about sums it up really. Labour don't need to say anything about independence at this point since it's not even on the agenda yet and so much about both brexit and independence is hypothetical, so why back themselves into a corner? I did think this was a good point though, and reflective not just of Scottish politics but also of things like the labour leadership debate: quote:"More than one million people voted leave [in Scotland], but the public debate we've been having since the UK voted to leave would make you think we voted unanimously for remain".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Supreme court rules against named person policy. The judgement itself is even handed, if a little ostentatiously grandiose at times (like the line about totalitarianism), essentially saying that the policy in its current form doesn't comply with existing laws about sharing information, and needs to be reworked. What's been disappointing is the reaction and how desperate and hyperbolic it's been; the SNP trying to spin this as a victory saying the court are endorsing the policy (they aren't: they simply rule on its legality) and screaming about BBC bias on explicitly factual headlines, while opponents are claiming the entire premise of the policy has been judged as unlawful (it hasn't, and it seems likely it'll pass after being reworked). It's a poor reflection of the policy making process in Parliament (and the SNP in particular here), since they should've made drat sure any law was actually compliant with the rest of the law before trying to pass it, but it's a relatively minor issue - policy to be tweaked, not abandoned. It should just never have gotten to this point. Having spoken to social workers I get the impression that professionals tend to thinks the policy is alright in principle, wouldn't actually change very much in terms of practice, and that anyone getting outraged over it doesn't really know what they're talking about (or is trying to score cheap and easy political points). I'm mostly just surprised the SNP let it go this far; they've tended to steer well clear of controversy, and this one in particular is quite a hard policy to defend and easy to attack in simple terms (government snooping on families!!!).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:That's exactly why they're doing it. Since the policy is pretty benign and has the support of charities and professionals working in the field, it makes those opposing it look completely irrational. As soon as you find out that people who understand the issue pretty much unanimously support it, the obvious conclusion is that anyone opposing it is either so blinded by their hatred of the SNP that they either can't assess a piece of legislation on its own merits, or, more interestingly, that they can but are lying about it in order to have a stick to beat the SNP with. Either way, it erodes trust in dissenting voices and means you're more to question them rather than the SNP. I think "unanimously support" is a bit strong. FWIW I work for a children & families charity (albeit a very small one, so we're not all that focused on policy) and my partner is a social worker, and the general impression I get from colleagues and friends in the sector is less "support" in the active sense and more of a tolerance. Precisely because it doesn't change all that much in practice (and potentially means more work) few are claiming it to be a fantastic policy that needs to be rammed through - it isn't bad, but it also isn't exactly a marvellous piece of legislation that people are desperate to have enacted. The opposition I've seen is also less anti-SNP (though obviously there's an element of that) and more a kind of emotive "stop the government meddling in the family!" It's somewhat irrational sure, but also entirely understandable (and predictable) and isn't going to be easily quelled by pointing to the nitty gritty of the legislation. The issue is that the policy (appears to) assert the authority of professionals over families in terms of child rearing, so saying professionals support it isn't a great argument that's likely to sway doubters. Where the SNP definitely can be criticised is in pushing forward with poorly written legislation. Given how predictably controversial the issue is - and has been all the way through the drafting process - it's astonishing that they didn't pore over it to make sure it was airtight from a legal POV. Again, I don't think it's a bad policy, but I'm surprised that such a politically touchy subject hasn't been treated with more care. EDIT: it's also worth mentioning that the policy is arguably a reaction to the fairly constant "social services are failing our children!!!" articles in the Mail etc, designed to add in another layer of oversight as a safeguard. Niric fucked around with this message at 13:08 on Jul 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:I disagree with this, at least to the point where it doesn't really matter whether it is about being anti-SNP or not, since it can so easily be interpreted as such. I don't disagree since there's plenty of political point scoring going on (interestingly, it seems to be largely from the Tories rather than labour, although that's just my immediate impression) to be sure, but it's worth noting that the action was brought by a group called The Christian Institute and that the groups supporting the No2NP campaign seem largely family/religion/anti-regulation oriented. It doesn't really seem to me to be driven by party politics specifically is my point; just a bad or misguided understanding of what named person actually means, and in some cases an aversion to social service intervention in family life in general. quote:Not that the Scottish media are helping themselves when they're putting up garbage headlines like " Supreme Court blocks 'totalitarian' Named Person scheme in historic ruling", as the Press and Journal did. The BBC aside, you're right the coverage has been overwhelmingly crap and simplistic, and sometimes downright hysterical. I'd argue it's less anti-SNP and more a media love of claiming to be guardians of liberty (unless the magic "terrorism" word is used), but I realise that's highly debatable. It just annoyed me to see Nicola Sturgeon's spad leaping to criticise the BBC specifically when their coverage has been perfectly fine as far as I can tell. Leggsy posted:It's interesting too because this result can also point to a wider problem with with the Scottish legal system. Given that NP passed the scrutiny of every Scottish court before finally being struck down by the UK Supreme Court. If so, it points to big flaws with legal advice within the Scottish Government, something that has to be examined and rectified, particularly if we vote for independence since I doubt the EU courts will be as forgiving on flawed legislation (See. Minimum Pricing). This is a really good point, and seems indicative of either a slapdash, arrogant, or overly parochial approach to the law. It seems like the blame should rest, at least in part, on the Scots legal profession as a whole, or at least the parts giving high level advice and judgements, rather than government, though you could make the argument they're responsible for not getting better advice It definitely wouldn't surprise me if Scots law is a particularly insular and self-regarding profession compared to elsewhere, but I really don't know enough about the contemporary legal scene - or how the law works in general - to have an informed opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Having just been rude about Scottish lawyers, it's only fair to point to this very clear and clear-minded blog post on the ruling from, er, a Scots lawyer (also props to whoever suggested following @peatworrier).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Just one last thing on Named Person, in case anyone isn't thoroughly bored of it yet. Here's an email I received this morning (technically it was sent yesterday, but it was after 5pm...) from Children in Scotland, the main umbrella organisation for the Children & Early Years sector, which might be of interest to anyone following the story. It essentially just summarises the judgement, but reading between the lines and the non-committal mandarin speak I think you get a feel for the general professional consensus; basically no real problem with Named Person policy and acceptance that it's going to go ahead. There's no element of "the Government needs to rethink...", it draws attention to how elements of the legislation are only incompatible with EU law "at present" (all emphasis is from the original), and doesn't challenge the assumption that the policy is going to get rolled out:quote:INFORMATION FOR CHILDREN IN SCOTLAND MEMBERS
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
Scotland Needs a Review into Social Care. It's be interesting to see what, if anything much, comes from this, but social care seems like a big political headache that's only going to get worse with an aging population and increasing financial and capacity pressures on all social services. AFAIK the overwhelming majority of funding comes from local authorities (although I don't think councils directly provide social care), and since their budgets have been savaged by central government social care has taken big hits already. It's an incredibly badly paid sector anyway with lovely hours and often lovely conditions, and as a focus for government spending it isn't splashy or liable to draw headlines, plus any investment in it isn't going to form obvious (and easily spinnable) returns and outcomes as with education, infrastructure or even healthcare, and unlike pensions or the like it doesn't affect a staunch voting group, so it's hard to be optimistic that any party is going to promise to sink a lot of funding into it when the political rewards are fairly limited. In other news, Iain MacWhirter is being...weird about Named Person. https://twitter.com/iainmacwhirter/status/759782674378743808 https://twitter.com/iainmacwhirter/status/760024867773288448 https://twitter.com/iainmacwhirter/status/760036490655174656
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I don't get it, are the Scottish resistance Jacobites? Are they gonna get that Duke Franz of Bavaria or whatever his name is to come over and be the king of independent Scotland? This sounds rather like you've put more thought into the purpose of the Scottish Resitance than they have
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
hookerbot 5000 posted:I just can't imagine it is a massive problem that needs to be resolved unless a lot more people want to gently caress their sisters than I thought. Of the 36 people who've signed it so far, only 3 - which doesn't include the petitioner, who's Australian - actually claim to reside in Scotland. One of these is "Holly Hunter", which could certainly push any Incredibles sequel into new and provocative territory for Pixar.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Eh, the reason Twitter are jumping on David Torrance is dumb as gently caress though. Scottish TV news is loving dire and laughable as it is, often padding their slot with complete non-stories. Why are people so desperate for "Scottish Six"? Making the news even more parochial seems like a terrible idea. Scotland 2016, which was actually pretty good, was axed because no one watched it - which includes all those demanding more Scottish news - so it's not like there's this huge demand for Scottish political coverage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:57 |
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Yeah, it always reeked of parochialism to me as well. Plus a waste of money. Will we have to have a Scottish correspondent at Westminster or does Nick Robinson or Laura Kuenssberg just have to pull double duty? 100% agree. If there's actually any decent articles defending the idea (I.e. not TwitterTwat23 moaning about BBC bias, or a hack in the national claiming it'll have amazing coverage of everything ever because, er, it's Scottish) I'd be interested in reading it. Ideally they'd just bring back Scotland 2016 and stick it on at 8pm, so you could watch it after channel 4 news (which I'm sure we can all agree is the Correct news) and those shorts they sometimes have.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 17:27
|
|