Grim... wrote:
MrC wrote:
No need for any mod intervention
Mod intervention is in blue. That was a Grim...tervention
Heh, nice pun. Righto, I'll remember that for the future, blue when you have your mod hat on.
The thing I find most disturbing about it (it being this entire process, not Stuart being a nationalist super-bellend) is the alterations in attitudes. As an example, I have a friend who sometime after university went to Aberdeen (I warned him it'd be cold, but no listen) Until recently he was fairly happy there. More recently the attitudes have changed such that he doesn't feel at all welcome, happy, and once of twice recently, actually all that safe.
Good going nationalists, You're living up to the proud tradition as set by the British Nationalist party, the national socialist party, those Irish nationalists etc etc. Hate that that isn't an arbitrary group of people that were born within a certain distance of you. *slow handclap*
Good going nationalists, You're living up to the proud tradition as set by the British Nationalist party, the national socialist party, those Irish nationalists etc etc. Hate that that isn't an arbitrary group of people that were born within a certain distance of you. *slow handclap*
Mr Dave wrote:
(I warned him it'd be cold, but no listen)
You even warned him in the regional dialect.
Mr Dave wrote:
Good going nationalists,
It's quite difficult to describe. Day to day, pretty much every nationalist Scot I've encountered is a nice enough person. You can sit and have a drink with them, providing the conversation doesn't swing to politics.
But it's still there. It's like a bubbling resentment just under the surface that for some reason makes them think going it alone is the best plan. They want to be equal, equivalent (they perceive themselves as not), and they think this is the way to get it. As someone who thinks it's a self-evidently bad idea, their judgement on this particular topic seems oddly compromised.
Not to be confused with the wild Cybernat,. They're pretty much racist mentals who would normally be constrained by social norms, except that this debate has given them a platform to vent their charmingly deranged personalities under the guise of democracy.
It's why I judge the SNP for not setting the ref. date sooner (you may recall they were criticised for this at the time), because the interregnum is downright unpleasant. I have to constantly remind myself that at all other times most Scots aren't walking around honking VOTE YES and that a majority of them agree with me that it's not a good idea.
Mr Dave wrote:
Good going nationalists, You're living up to the proud tradition as set by the British Nationalist party, the national socialist party, those Irish nationalists etc etc. Hate that that isn't an arbitrary group of people that were born within a certain distance of you. *slow handclap*
Mr C said.
Possibly, but Campbell reeks of extremism and that's a worry and a reason for scrutinising his bilious outpourings.
Campbell's kind of extremism, based on an intense Daily Mail styled 'othering', coupled to the forces of Nationalism is potentially dangerous in such a small country as Scotland. Campbell and his cabal of acolytes fulfil enough of the negative stereotypes associated with Nationalism to represent a real and potential threat. Although, as you guys are probably already aware, it's way overblown in Campbell's mind in both importance, influence and reach.
Mr Campbell coordinated, planned and executed a surveillance operation on train stations throughout Scotland earlier this year, where his willing and ready "goons" stalked and took pictures of ordinary everyday people going about their business. One editor of a national Scottish newspaper, not known for intemperate language, described the 'operation' as "creepy as fuck".
Campbell's inaccuracies, lies, falsehoods and propaganda resulted in the demand in the Scottish Parliament for the resignation of of one of Alex Salmond's SPADs. The SPAD was under the false impression that what was written in Wings Over Scotland could be trusted as true and accurate. He quickly found to his personal cost the repercussions of holding that belief.
The Deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson of the Westminster SNP eulogised Wings Over Scotland at a public debate recently, citing the blog as having a 1 million readership. As someone here has already mentioned, it's pie in the sky to compare unique users to actual readers due to the way Google Analytics works. In other words, Campbell is propagating his own wee version of the 'big lie' - another Nationalist style stereotype.
Scotland has enough chip-on-shoulder and grievance merchants kicking about without hate-preachers like Campbell stoking the fire.
One other thing Mr C, if you want to know why I've pronounced a fully justifiable open season of scrutiny on Mr Campbell, you need only ask.
I'm a bona fide undecided in the referendum debate - though that's not strictly true, I'm going to spoil my ballot paper - yet that hasn't stopped Campbell from making several accusations against me which are risibly untrue in order to fulfil the Walter Mitty like chip on shoulder he appears to incubate regarding stalkers/trolls etc etc.
Regards
Longshanker - Editor of AhDinnaeKen
Quote:
I had a quick look at that dinnaeken thing out of curiosity and to me it reeks of obsession/stalking.
Possibly, but Campbell reeks of extremism and that's a worry and a reason for scrutinising his bilious outpourings.
Campbell's kind of extremism, based on an intense Daily Mail styled 'othering', coupled to the forces of Nationalism is potentially dangerous in such a small country as Scotland. Campbell and his cabal of acolytes fulfil enough of the negative stereotypes associated with Nationalism to represent a real and potential threat. Although, as you guys are probably already aware, it's way overblown in Campbell's mind in both importance, influence and reach.
Mr Campbell coordinated, planned and executed a surveillance operation on train stations throughout Scotland earlier this year, where his willing and ready "goons" stalked and took pictures of ordinary everyday people going about their business. One editor of a national Scottish newspaper, not known for intemperate language, described the 'operation' as "creepy as fuck".
Campbell's inaccuracies, lies, falsehoods and propaganda resulted in the demand in the Scottish Parliament for the resignation of of one of Alex Salmond's SPADs. The SPAD was under the false impression that what was written in Wings Over Scotland could be trusted as true and accurate. He quickly found to his personal cost the repercussions of holding that belief.
The Deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson of the Westminster SNP eulogised Wings Over Scotland at a public debate recently, citing the blog as having a 1 million readership. As someone here has already mentioned, it's pie in the sky to compare unique users to actual readers due to the way Google Analytics works. In other words, Campbell is propagating his own wee version of the 'big lie' - another Nationalist style stereotype.
Scotland has enough chip-on-shoulder and grievance merchants kicking about without hate-preachers like Campbell stoking the fire.
One other thing Mr C, if you want to know why I've pronounced a fully justifiable open season of scrutiny on Mr Campbell, you need only ask.
I'm a bona fide undecided in the referendum debate - though that's not strictly true, I'm going to spoil my ballot paper - yet that hasn't stopped Campbell from making several accusations against me which are risibly untrue in order to fulfil the Walter Mitty like chip on shoulder he appears to incubate regarding stalkers/trolls etc etc.
Regards
Longshanker - Editor of AhDinnaeKen
Unsurprisingly, according to the Grauniad, the Chinese leadership aren't too keen on parts of countries splitting away.
I agree with the spokesman for the 'Aye' camp on this:
Quote:
Li was asked about the referendum at a joint press conference with David Cameron in Westminster. Li said he wanted a "strong, prosperous and united United Kingdom".
I agree with the spokesman for the 'Aye' camp on this:
Quote:
A spokesman for the Yes Scotland campaign said: "Unlike people in China, people here will have a free and democratic vote on 18 September when they will decide on the future of their country.
Longshanker wrote:
I'm a bona fide undecided in the referendum debate - though that's not strictly true, I'm going to spoil my ballot paper
I'm intrigued. What leads you to abstain?
Longshanker wrote:
Mr C said.
One other thing Mr C, if you want to know why I've pronounced a fully justifiable open season of scrutiny on Mr Campbell, you need only ask.
Longshanker - Editor of AhDinnaeKen
Quote:
I had a quick look at that dinnaeken thing out of curiosity and to me it reeks of obsession/stalking.
One other thing Mr C, if you want to know why I've pronounced a fully justifiable open season of scrutiny on Mr Campbell, you need only ask.
Longshanker - Editor of AhDinnaeKen
I'm quite happy to ask. If there's anything you think I need to know that you can't post on here you can always send me a PM, I'm not closed-minded, but I didn't see anything in your post that changed my mind so far.
Kern wrote:
Unsurprisingly, according to the Grauniad, the Chinese leadership aren't too keen on parts of countries splitting away.
I agree with the spokesman for the 'Aye' camp on this:
Quote:
Li was asked about the referendum at a joint press conference with David Cameron in Westminster. Li said he wanted a "strong, prosperous and united United Kingdom".
I agree with the spokesman for the 'Aye' camp on this:
Quote:
A spokesman for the Yes Scotland campaign said: "Unlike people in China, people here will have a free and democratic vote on 18 September when they will decide on the future of their country.
Yeah but on the other hand, it's yet another powerful No advocate. Perhaps the Cybernats can count on the power and might of The Cook Islands on the international stage?
Cavey wrote:
Yeah but on the other hand, it's yet another powerful No advocate. Perhaps the Cybernats can count on the power and might of The Cook Islands on the international stage?
'Vote no or we'll take the pandas away'
Longshanker wrote:
Mr Campbell coordinated, planned and executed a surveillance operation on train stations throughout Scotland earlier this year, where his willing and ready "goons" stalked and took pictures of ordinary everyday people going about their business.
Wait, what? What for?
Grim... wrote:
Longshanker wrote:
Mr Campbell coordinated, planned and executed a surveillance operation on train stations throughout Scotland earlier this year, where his willing and ready "goons" stalked and took pictures of ordinary everyday people going about their business.
Wait, what? What for?
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-honesty-patrol/
Longshanker and his blog isn't really doing itself any favours in my eyes; his style of rhetoric and the way he seems to obsess over Stuart's actions and words puts me in mind of none other than Stuart himself. Reading both sites just makes your brain gloss over the content of everything in order to filter out the flood of weasel words and needless pish that's shoe-horned in. If they could just get over themselves and finally have that kiss they're both so obviously desperate for then maybe they could both start covering events like grown-ups again.
Like you and Myp?
Longshanker wrote:
I'm going to spoil my ballot paper
It's one thing to be undecided, but why on earth would you do this as an alternative?
Grim... wrote:
Like you and Myp?
Except the bit about about ever acting like grown-ups obviously.
Bamba wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Like you and Myp?
Except the bit about about ever acting like grown-ups obviously.
Speak for yourself!
Kern
Two equal and opposite forces cancelling each other out. If I was to vote No it would be because of the people. With the exception of accents and Scotland being a little bit more to the left than England, I don't see the differences in us - the old cliche of United we stand, divided we fall etc. I used to think I was anti-English until I actually worked there for seven odd years. I've always found the people to be welcoming and friendly.
Before the Treaty of Union, Scotland was one of the poorest countries in Europe. Right or wrong, the Union rejuvenated the economic and social welfare of Scotland.
If I was to vote Yes, it would be because of some of the common Nationalist grievances - Westminster is remote and in need of constitutionally democratic reform. First Past the Post is an anachronism which does the whole country no favours. The unelected House of Lords is archaic, mostly anti-democratic and overly expensive.
There are several other reasons, one of the main one's being Mr Salmond's unseemly courting of the Murdoch press, but I wouldn't want to bore you to tears.
Regards
Longshanker
Quote:
I'm intrigued. What leads you to abstain?
Two equal and opposite forces cancelling each other out. If I was to vote No it would be because of the people. With the exception of accents and Scotland being a little bit more to the left than England, I don't see the differences in us - the old cliche of United we stand, divided we fall etc. I used to think I was anti-English until I actually worked there for seven odd years. I've always found the people to be welcoming and friendly.
Before the Treaty of Union, Scotland was one of the poorest countries in Europe. Right or wrong, the Union rejuvenated the economic and social welfare of Scotland.
If I was to vote Yes, it would be because of some of the common Nationalist grievances - Westminster is remote and in need of constitutionally democratic reform. First Past the Post is an anachronism which does the whole country no favours. The unelected House of Lords is archaic, mostly anti-democratic and overly expensive.
There are several other reasons, one of the main one's being Mr Salmond's unseemly courting of the Murdoch press, but I wouldn't want to bore you to tears.
Regards
Longshanker
Longshanker wrote:
Before the Treaty of Union, Scotland was one of the poorest countries in Europe. Right or wrong, the Union rejuvenated the economic and social welfare of Scotland.
Dude, that was three hundred years ago. What's that got to do with anything today?
300 years ago North America was pretty poor...
Longshanker wrote:
There are several other reasons, one of the main one's being Mr Salmond's unseemly courting of the Murdoch press, but I wouldn't want to bore you to tears.
Trust me, on this subject (and generally anything about the constitution) it's extremely hard to bore me to tears. Barnet formula, anyone?
But, I appreciate your dilemma, in that both the status quo and the alternative are equally unappealing. I probably would feel the same way about a vote on the beloved EU - can't stand the corruption, the secrecy, the general disregard for democracy, and the remoteness, but don't want to lose the free trade and free movement of people (but that's an argument for another thread).
Have you looked at the Scotland Act 2012 and the advances it makes if it comes into force?
Doctor Glyndwr said:
Nothing at all, but you don't seem to appreciate that part of the Nationalists narrative is that Scotland has been suffering at the hand of our colonising, subjugating colonial imperialistic masters - the English. I shit you not! And this vote is being sold in some quarters as a democratic chance to right that historical injustice - just so you know. I agree with you it's irrelevant, the Union happened 300 years ago FFS, but that's a real and present phenomenon of the Nationalist mindset.
Kern said:
Yes:
The real embarrassment about the present Scottish Parliament is that the majority of Scots aren't even aware of the extensive powers it already has. The Nationalists have hardly touched any of the powers which could make a real difference up here, such as land reform. The majority of their narrative is anti-Westminster and at times the use of "Westminster" sounds like a euphemism for the English.
Regards
Quote:
Dude, that was three hundred years ago. What's that got to do with anything today?
Nothing at all, but you don't seem to appreciate that part of the Nationalists narrative is that Scotland has been suffering at the hand of our colonising, subjugating colonial imperialistic masters - the English. I shit you not! And this vote is being sold in some quarters as a democratic chance to right that historical injustice - just so you know. I agree with you it's irrelevant, the Union happened 300 years ago FFS, but that's a real and present phenomenon of the Nationalist mindset.
Kern said:
Quote:
Have you looked at the Scotland Act 2012 and the advances it makes if it comes into force?
Yes:
The real embarrassment about the present Scottish Parliament is that the majority of Scots aren't even aware of the extensive powers it already has. The Nationalists have hardly touched any of the powers which could make a real difference up here, such as land reform. The majority of their narrative is anti-Westminster and at times the use of "Westminster" sounds like a euphemism for the English.
Regards
Or this bullshit pledge to offer subsidised childcare in an independent Scotland - a power they already have under their devolved government. Cheap blackmail.
Can confirm the sentiments above. I have seen much historical axe-grinding referencing the original Act of Union and a variety of historical events in the interim.
Nats will insist not a hint of anglophobia exist anywhere in their ranks, hence the carefully slagging off of 'Westminster' and not the English.
Salmond is also extremely careful to always say 'People of Scotland' (ad naseum, as it happens) rather than 'Scots' or 'Scottish', knowing as he does that quite a lot of us aren't Scottish.
Can confirm the sentiments above. I have seen much historical axe-grinding referencing the original Act of Union and a variety of historical events in the interim.
Nats will insist not a hint of anglophobia exist anywhere in their ranks, hence the carefully slagging off of 'Westminster' and not the English.
Salmond is also extremely careful to always say 'People of Scotland' (ad naseum, as it happens) rather than 'Scots' or 'Scottish', knowing as he does that quite a lot of us aren't Scottish.
Or (specialist subject), the need to get the income tax varying powers that they already have. But wont use now as they would only use them in one direction so wouldn't dare scare the horses.
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Can confirm the sentiments above. I have seen much historical axe-grinding referencing the original Act of Union and a variety of historical events in the interim.
We should all really be blaming the Normans.
Kern wrote:
We should all really be blaming the Normans.
Send 'em all back home, that's what I say. 
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Kern wrote:
We should all really be blaming the Normans.
Send 'em all back home, that's what I say.Celtic Britain First is my new favourite Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/celticbritainfirst
Attachment:
10354747_1441456009437503_8956319185808715550_n.jpg
ElephantBanjoGnome said:
There is no alternative. There's no way I could vote No. To vote no is to vindicate the entrenched and skewed privilege of the Westminster system. It's constitutionally anathema to me. It needs reformed whether Scotland votes Yes or not.
To vote Yes is to admit that you've been sold a pup by the Nationalists and their assertions/fantasies. A worrying minority of Nationalists genuinely believe that to vote No is to be "anti-Scottish". I find that deeply offensive as well as more than a little bit worrying - considering how high up the echelons of the Nationalist party the sentiment reaches.
I've got no beef with Yes or No voters per se. As a staunch undecided it's like living in a Gerry Rafferty song - "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."
Regards
Quote:
It's one thing to be undecided, but why on earth would you do this as an alternative?
There is no alternative. There's no way I could vote No. To vote no is to vindicate the entrenched and skewed privilege of the Westminster system. It's constitutionally anathema to me. It needs reformed whether Scotland votes Yes or not.
To vote Yes is to admit that you've been sold a pup by the Nationalists and their assertions/fantasies. A worrying minority of Nationalists genuinely believe that to vote No is to be "anti-Scottish". I find that deeply offensive as well as more than a little bit worrying - considering how high up the echelons of the Nationalist party the sentiment reaches.
I've got no beef with Yes or No voters per se. As a staunch undecided it's like living in a Gerry Rafferty song - "clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right..."
Regards
In this situation, an absentention, no matter how honorable the reasoning behind it, is not really an option. I don't think one can be completely indifferent to the most fundamental question of who they wish to be ruled by.
You can't go for 'not proven' on this: if you don't want independence then a no vote is the only way to avoid it.
You can't go for 'not proven' on this: if you don't want independence then a no vote is the only way to avoid it.
Kern wrote:
if you don't want independence then a no vote is the only way to avoid it.
Especially as a No vote doesn't mean a vote for the status quo. It just means next there will have to be a debate on devo max, etc.
American Nervoso wrote:
Kern wrote:
if you don't want independence then a no vote is the only way to avoid it.
Especially as a No vote doesn't mean a vote for the status quo. It just means next there will have to be a debate on devo max, etc.
And a discussion on whether or not the Scottish Parliament actually wants to use the powers that have already been given to them, or just moan about not having the powers that they have actually been given already.
We had a person from Yea Scotland and someone from the Better Together Campagin in School yesterday for a debate. The Yes guy was well spoken, easily answering all questions (and providing websites and such we can look to for proof). I went up to the Better Together guy at the end, and congratulated him on his amazing use of Mis-information and selective information. (He looked a little put out)
Anyway, at the end we were given bits of paper to vote on. 70% voted Yes, and 29% voted No. (1% was spoiled)
Anyway, at the end we were given bits of paper to vote on. 70% voted Yes, and 29% voted No. (1% was spoiled)
Haven't you finished school yet?
What's your view Cookie? What arguments did you find most convincing?
DavPaz wrote:
Haven't you finished school yet?
No, I COULD have, but I've stayed on for the last year. I'm in S6 now.
Heh, I read that as "I'm 56 now".
How time flies!
How time flies!
Cookie197 wrote:
We had a person from Yea Scotland and someone from the Better Together Campagin in School yesterday for a debate. The Yes guy was well spoken, easily answering all questions (and providing websites and such we can look to for proof). I went up to the Better Together guy at the end, and congratulated him on his amazing use of Mis-information and selective information. (He looked a little put out)
Anyway, at the end we were given bits of paper to vote on. 70% voted Yes, and 29% voted No. (1% was spoiled)
Anyway, at the end we were given bits of paper to vote on. 70% voted Yes, and 29% voted No. (1% was spoiled)
You see, that's exactly what someone would say if they had already made up their mind before a debate occurred.
What was the Yes chap's view on leaving the EU, the large companies leaving Scotland due to not wanting independence, the currency, the legal, tax and regulatory systems, etc? Did he have actual answers or the made up stuff that Salmond talks about?
Kern wrote:
I don't think one can be completely indifferent to the most fundamental question of who they wish to be ruled by.
And not least because that all major parties have outlined the additional powers that would be received in the event of a No, so voting No isn't voting for the status quo at all.
Mild amusement at Cookie's flash school poll. Reminds me of a general election debate where the third party can make up any old bollocks about why you should vote for them, which very easily makes them look awesome because they're not constrained by the worry of actually getting in and having to make good on their fanciful promises. Poor old Clegg and his sad comedown on tuition fees - but that's the reality of government for you.
YesNP are still living up in those clouds, and should it happen we can't even vote to reverse it in 5 years time when none of it pans out as promised.
Curiosity wrote:
Did he have actual answers or the made up stuff that Salmond talks about?
I'm sure he rolled out the usual guff about how Scotland is so amazingly wealthy (more than France, don't you know!) and all they need is independence to make everyone so much better off than they are now. You don't even have to work for it! Just vote Yes! Fairer, more prosperous! Magical, amazing! Oil! Derp!
ElephantBanjoGnome wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Did he have actual answers or the made up stuff that Salmond talks about?
I'm sure he rolled out the usual guff about how Scotland is so amazingly wealthy (more than France, don't you know!) and all they need is independence to make everyone so much better off than they are now. You don't even have to work for it! Just vote Yes! Fairer, more prosperous! Magical, amazing! Oil! Derp!
No.
He actually quite often mentioned that he didn't actually like SNP or Alex Salmond, he admitted he was a Scottish Labour supporter, and he'd much rather they rule the country if we become independent.
Curiosity wrote:
What was the Yes chap's view on leaving the EU, the large companies leaving Scotland due to not wanting independence, the currency, the legal, tax and regulatory systems, etc? Did he have actual answers or the made up stuff that Salmond talks about?
He didn't really care about the EU, neither he or the BT guy really mentioned the EU. They both made a small mention on companies leaving, but it was pretty much just the BT guy saying " EVERY SINGLE BIG COMPANY IS GOING TO LEAVE AN INDEPENDANT SCOTLAND" and the Yes guy replying "That's a load of crap, not only will it be cheaper for them to stay with reduced corporation tax, but (while some companies have said they will leave) plenty more have either no opinion or said it will make little difference" tax- didn't really go much into it apart from mentioning it will probably stay about the same. I don't think currency was mentioned much either. (Beyond BT person saying HAHAHA YOUR GONNA JOIN COLLAPSING CURRENCY LOL)
Honestly, the better together guy was a proper freak.
What was the main thrust of the Yes campaigner's argument? What was his main reason for wanting a split?
Hope you don't mind me asking these questions. I'm genuinely interested to know how they made their case.
Hope you don't mind me asking these questions. I'm genuinely interested to know how they made their case.
I can absolutely see why independence appears seductive to some people (see also UK from the EU), but it does worry me that it's for the wrong reasons. My personal belief is that to compete and work with the US, Russia, India, China, etc, you should be in as large a union as possible. The smaller you are, the less clout you have. This applies to both Scotland in the UK and the UK in Europe.
Kern wrote:
What was the main thrust of the Yes campaigner's argument? What was his main reason for wanting a split?
Hope you don't mind me asking these questions. I'm genuinely interested to know how they made their case.
Hope you don't mind me asking these questions. I'm genuinely interested to know how they made their case.
His main points in the 20 minutes he had at the start to put across his point was mainly equality. He mentioned repeatedly that the UK is one of the worst developed countries in terms of Human rights - Female equality, children living in ABSOLUTE (<his emphasize) poverty (1 in 4) etc. His main believe seemed to revolve around the idea that if we were independent, we could help those 1 in 4 children, and we could pass laws in order to make things more equal for women. (Excuse my ignorance - but what unequality is there for women in the UK?)
I think he has good ideas, and he really seems to believe that an independent scotland is the only way to ensure everyone is equal as they should be.
(As I said, that is what he thought. I agree with some of it, not saying it's my views though)
The Better Together guy went on about how everything the Yes guy said was a load of rubbish. - "I honestly have no idea what he's talking about, I havn't seen ANY evidence of poverty or inequality anywhere in scotland!" Yes! Because it's obviously going to be in plain sight! I'm so glad BT obviously has people of such outstanding intelligence working for them! He mentioned plenty of the rubbish that better together has came out with that has been disproved in the last few months.
(Sorry, but still. I don't care if people have their own opinions, but he kept talking in such a condescending way, as if we were primary children that didn't have a clue about the world. Not S6 who are looking into Uni courses.)
Cookie197 wrote:
but he kept talking in such a condescending way, as if we were primary children that didn't have a clue about the world
Cookie197 wrote:
Excuse my ignorance - but what unequality is there for women in the UK?
...
Grim... wrote:
Cookie197 wrote:
but he kept talking in such a condescending way, as if we were primary children that didn't have a clue about the world
Cookie197 wrote:
Excuse my ignorance - but what unequality is there for women in the UK?
...
Point taken.
But really!
And I get that was a stupid question, I mean I know that in most jobs Women get paid less, are passed over in promotion is favour of men, there are very little women CEO's(etc), I'm fairly certain some are fired if they get pregnant - either that or they get no maternity pay. So I do have a BASIC idea, I was just wondering what else there was that is less obvious.
[EDIT] Just realised how that almost sounds - Yes, that's all terrible, and I hope there isn't more, but I'm sure there is. I was wondering what that 'more' includes.
It's illegal for employers to discriminate against women in the UK. How did the Yes campaign guy suggest they would enforce equality law (which is already in place)?
Cookie197 wrote:
And I get that was a stupid question, I mean I know that in most jobs Women get paid less, are passed over in promotion is favour of men, there are very little women CEO's(etc), I'm fairly certain some are fired if they get pregnant - either that or they get no maternity pay. So I do have a BASIC idea, I was just wondering what else there was that is less obvious.
[EDIT] Just realised how that almost sounds - Yes, that's all terrible, and I hope there isn't more, but I'm sure there is. I was wondering what that 'more' includes.
[EDIT] Just realised how that almost sounds - Yes, that's all terrible, and I hope there isn't more, but I'm sure there is. I was wondering what that 'more' includes.
I'm not entirely sure women do get paid less -- it's a hotly debated topic with both sides pushing lots of figures adjusting for all sorts of experience and time-at-company etc etc. But it's a million percent illegal to fire someone if they're pregnant and maternity pay/leave is governed by law, those some places pay extra as an incentive. Instead small companies just avoid hiring people who'll get pregnant
Saying the UK is one of the worst developed countries in terms of human rights is, to me, completely insane, unless the only places you're comparing the UK to are Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden? Just compare it to a "developed" country like Russia to see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ment_Index
http://www.ihrri.com/contry.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index
I imagine the UK's score has gotten higher since civil partnerships and gay marriage?
Does he have a source for 1 in 4 children living in poverty?
Seems like he thinks Scotland will suddenly become a utopia if it's independent, and that the rest of the UK is purposefully backwards..
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats ... 13_ENG.pdf
UK come in 19th with 13 visits to the ECHR.
1959-2013 stats:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats ... 13_ENG.pdf
UK come in 19th with 13 visits to the ECHR.
1959-2013 stats:
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats ... 13_ENG.pdf
Page 14 of 41 [ 2009 posts ]