General Politics Thread

[beermonkey]

4 hours ago, Antlion said:

Then you don't want an independent Scotland at all. You patently don't want Scotland to be a nation that elects parties with policies you don't like. That is what independence is; being a state that elects people we, as individuals, may not all agree with, but who make decisions about international bodies at the behest of the Scottish people as a national collective.

I do want an independent scotland, but there is no such thing as an independent nation within the EU, Why is that so hard for people to understand?

[Cream Cheese]

10 minutes ago, beermonkey said:

I do want an independent scotland, but there is no such thing as an independent nation within the EU, Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Well if you want an independent Scotland. Vote for an Independent Scotland. Then campaign for Scotland to leave the EU. The whole point of leaving the UK is that it gives Scotland (and only Scotland) the choice on where it's future lies. As long as we're part of the UK, Scotland cannot collectively decide on it's own future.

[Antlion]

2 hours ago, beermonkey said:

I do want an independent scotland, but there is no such thing as an independent nation within the EU, Why is that so hard for people to understand?

No, you don't. If you wanted an independent Scotland you'd vote for an independent Scotland, whether it was in the EU or not, and then vote for a party which is pro-Sexit/anti-EU. If you don't want the people of Scotland to choose whether to be in or out of the EU whenever they want to decide, you don't want an independent Scotland.

Your position is like saying "I believe in a sovereign UK, unless its people elect governments which do things I don't like - then I want it to be the 51st state of America".

[beermonkey]

10 hours ago, Cream Cheese said:

Well if you want an independent Scotland. Vote for an Independent Scotland. Then campaign for Scotland to leave the EU. The whole point of leaving the UK is that it gives Scotland (and only Scotland) the choice on where it's future lies. As long as we're part of the UK, Scotland cannot collectively decide on it's own future.

I did vote for an independent scotland & i did vote to get out of the EU, that's what REAL independence is.

[renton]

10 hours ago, beermonkey said:

I do want an independent scotland, but there is no such thing as an independent nation within the EU, Why is that so hard for people to understand?

There is no such thing as an independent nation within the UK in any event.

There is a difference betwern independence and isolation. Indeed modern nations all have to calculate a trade off between sovereignty and market access. We will always have to make decisions on the level of interdependence and commonality with our neighbours. This looks increasingly like a choice between two Unions - and you can't honestly say the Westminster one is less present, less controlling over Scotland's destiny.

The EU institutions still allow wide lattitude over vast swathes of domestic and foreign affairs. Even under super duper devo-max westminster offers little of the former and none of the latter. Is that truly the course you'd rather pick?

Edited October 16, 2016 by renton

[Wee Willie]

11 hours ago, beermonkey said:

I do want an independent scotland, but there is no such thing as an independent nation within the EU, Why is that so hard for people to understand?

 

11 hours ago, Cream Cheese said:

Well if you want an independent Scotland. Vote for an Independent Scotland. Then campaign for Scotland to leave the EU. The whole point of leaving the UK is that it gives Scotland (and only Scotland) the choice on where it's future lies. As long as we're part of the UK, Scotland cannot collectively decide on it's own future.

That is why I abstained at the EU vote.

England makes the decisions.

[jmothecat]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-should-ban-all-men-from-standing-in-byelections-mp-jess-phillips-says-a3367131.html

"Labour should ban men from standing in all future by-elections until half the party’s MPs are female, Jess Phillips MP has said."

"Her comments came as Mr Corbyn, Conservative Party Chairman Patrick McLoughlin, SNP leader Angus Roberston and Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron were quizzed by the cross-party Women and Equalities Committee in the Commons as part of their inquiry into how constituency changes will impact on women."

"Mrs Phillips, the new chair of the women’s parliamentary Labour party and committee member, said: “I think the Labour Party has to make every seat an all women shortlist until we get equality.""

f**k sake, that woman is a cancer. She is the same twat who was heard laughing at a committee meeting when a member brought up the alarmingly high male suicide rates in the area.  

I think she is right. Women are woefully underrepresented in parliament and in the PLP and more radical ideas are needed. It's becoming increasingly clear that all-women's shortlists alone aren't enough.

As for the 'laughing at male suicide' she's done a lot for mental health so it seems odd to deride her over something on that topic, and whilst I can't remember the full details of that incident did she not laugh at a point an anti-feminist Tory was making relating to the point of male suicide, rather than suicide itself?

[ayrmad]

18 minutes ago, jmothecat said:

 

I think she is right. Women are woefully underrepresented in parliament and in the PLP and more radical ideas are needed. It's becoming increasingly clear that all-women's shortlists alone aren't enough.

As for the 'laughing at male suicide' she's done a lot for mental health so it seems odd to deride her over something on that topic, and whilst I can't remember the full details of that incident did she not laugh at a point an anti-feminist Tory was making relating to the point of male suicide, rather than suicide itself?

 

Aye and Trump has done lots for female employment.

[strichener]

1 hour ago, renton said:

There is no such thing as an independent nation within the UK in any event.

There is a difference betwern independence and isolation. Indeed modern nations all have to calculate a trade off between sovereignty and market access. We will always have to make decisions on the level of interdependence and commonality with our neighbours. This looks increasingly like a choice between two Unions - and you can't honestly say the Westminster one is less present, less controlling over Scotland's destiny.

The EU institutions still allow wide lattitude over vast swathes of domestic and foreign affairs. Even under super duper devo-max westminster offers little of the former and none of the latter. Is that truly the course you'd rather pick?

That isn't what he posted, he didn't state any preference for Westminster what so ever.  Your opinion that it is a straight choice between UK and EU may is certainly not universally accepted.

[renton]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

That isn't what he posted, he didn't state any preference for Westminster what so ever.  Your opinion that it is a straight choice between UK and EU may is certainly not universally accepted.

It is very unlikely that Indyref2, should it come, will be anything other than a straight up choice between indy in EU or UK out of EU. Not a perfect option for yourself by any means. However, it should be seen as an incremental journey. If you want an independent Scotland outside of the EU, then independence within the EU is a necessary pre-cursor. I say this given the 45/55 and 62/38 referendum results. The outlook and makeup of the majority of the Yes movement and the requirement to make hay out of a change in EU status to get the 2nd indy ref in the first place. There is no way a camapign for independence outside the EU is going to attract much support, and no clear path to demanding it from the UK outside of the EU.

My principle is that in any referendum that offers Scotland more control over it's own destiny, that option should be pursued. Only then can other visions for what Scotland should look like can be put to the test. Voting to stay in the UK outside of the EU offers no pathway to that and, imperfect though it may seem, independence within the EU does - even if it is another point to a different destination.

[strichener]

26 minutes ago, renton said:

It is very unlikely that Indyref2, should it come, will be anything other than a straight up choice between indy in EU or UK out of EU. Not a perfect option for yourself by any means. However, it should be seen as an incremental journey. If you want an independent Scotland outside of the EU, then independence within the EU is a necessary pre-cursor. I say this given the 45/55 and 62/38 referendum results. The outlook and makeup of the majority of the Yes movement and the requirement to make hay out of a change in EU status to get the 2nd indy ref in the first place. There is no way a camapign for independence outside the EU is going to attract much support, and no clear path to demanding it from the UK outside of the EU.

My principle is that in any referendum that offers Scotland more control over it's own destiny, that option should be pursued. Only then can other visions for what Scotland should look like can be put to the test. Voting to stay in the UK outside of the EU offers no pathway to that and, imperfect though it may seem, independence within the EU does - even if it is another point to a different destination.

I agree with all of this.  However, if the SNP do not offer the option of Independence outside of the EU then they are going to lose people who voted Yes in the last referendum.  Not to mention those that have lost interest in the whole process, as my wife has done.

[jmothecat]

How sure are we that an Indy Scotland would remain in the EU?

[WaffenThinMint]

2 hours ago, jmothecat said:

I think she is right. Women are woefully underrepresented in parliament and in the PLP and more radical ideas are needed. It's becoming increasingly clear that all-women's shortlists alone aren't enough.

We have 2% of our population who are ethnically oriental (East or South East Asian).

Number of MPs to be representative = 13

Number of MPs there has ever been who were oriental - 1⅛ (Iain Duncan Smith's great-granny was Japanese). Alan mhak is the only one that's ever been elected, and that was from being parachuted into a safe seat (which subsequently came close to splitting) after embarrassment all round in Parliament that Stormont of all places was the first part of the UK to elect an oriental to a tier of government above district council level.

Tokenism is not the solution - having people as candidates is one thing, having them elected is quite another, & when you're in as much trouble as the current Labour Party is in, they cannot afford self-indulgence to give themselves another pat in the back over when it may cost them seats from failing to stand the best candidates.

They got where they are today because cronyism came back to bite them: decades of useless trade union time servers getting safe seats as lobby fodder were followed by a decade of members of the Cult of Tony. In both instances voters drifted away, new members left in despair, & the party's been on the slide ever since (and before there's any whataboutery over the membership since Corbyn, let's see how many actually pass the acid test of bothering to do a stroke come election time). Tokenism is little better - having anyone as your candidate for reasons other than merit is wrong.

Edited October 16, 2016 by WaffenThinMint

[EdgarusQPFC]

2 hours ago, jmothecat said:

 

I think she is right. Women are woefully underrepresented in parliament and in the PLP and more radical ideas are needed. It's becoming increasingly clear that all-women's shortlists alone aren't enough.

As for the 'laughing at male suicide' she's done a lot for mental health so it seems odd to deride her over something on that topic, and whilst I can't remember the full details of that incident did she not laugh at a point an anti-feminist Tory was making relating to the point of male suicide, rather than suicide itself?

 

I should correct myself a little, she didnt directly laugh at the concept of male suicide, but she laughed at the idea that men have issues that should be discussed, but she did later on joke about the higher male mortality rate on twitter. She is absolute scum. Oh and women make up 40% of MP's in Labour according to her, so the situation isn't as dire as she make it out to be.


"During a parliamentary committee meeting on Thursday, Conservative MP Philip Davis suggested: “I thought that in the spirit of gender equality, it would only be right to have a debate to commemorate International Men’s Day,” which is on the 19th of November.

Explaining that; “Not only do we already have International Women’s Day, we also have women and equality questions every month in the chamber, which we don’t have for men, so the opportunity for men to raise issues that are important to them is very limited.”

At this point, Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, interrupted proceedings by loudly busting into laughter, covering her face with her hands.

“I’m not entirely sure why it’s so humorous,” replied Mr Davis as he paused for the interruption to pass, before going on to list the specific issues he proposed discussing during the debate:

“Such as men’s shorter life expectancy, wider men’s health issues, many of which go unreported because of embarrassment,” he said, as well as, “the high suicide rate amongst men, the propensity for violence against men… the underachievement of boys in education compared to girls,” and “the issues around father-child relationships.”

Mrs Philips immediately derided the suggestion: “You’ll have to excuse me for laughing, but the idea that men don’t have the opportunity to ask questions in this place is a frankly laughable thing,” she scoffed.

“As the only woman on this committee, it seems like every day to me is International Men’s Day,” she added. “When I’ve got parity, when women in these buildings have parity, you can have your debate. And that will take an awfully long time.”

When Davis questioned her, she said: “In the fight for equality, I’m not sure the men on this list [of people who want to see the debate take place] necessarily have that much to fight for.”"

She then later tweeted 

 

User Actions

  Follow

Jess Phillips MPVerified account‏@jessphillips

Jess Phillips MP Retweeted Vic (@SpaceMidget75)

Apparently we don't die as much, hands up who is immortal #highlander

Edited October 16, 2016 by EdgarusQPFC

[jmothecat]

We have 2% of our population who are ethnically oriental (East or South East Asian).

Number of MPs to be representative = 13

Number of MPs there has ever been who were oriental - 1⅛ (Iain Duncan Smith's great-granny was Japanese). Alan mhak is the only one that's ever been elected, and that was from being parachuted into a safe seat (which subsequently came close to splitting) after embarrassment all round in Parliament that Stormont of all places was the first part of the UK to elect an oriental to a tier of government above district council level.

Tokenism is not the solution - having people as candidates is one thing, having them elected is quite another, & when you're in as much trouble as the current Labour Party is in, they cannot afford self-indulgence to give themselves another pat in the back over when it may cost them seats from failing to stand the best candidates.

They got where they are today because cronyism came back to bite them: decades of useless trade union time servers getting safe seats as lobby fodder were followed by a decade of members of the Cult of Tony. In both instances voters drifted away, new members left in despair, & the party's been on the slide ever since (and before there's any whataboutery over the membership since Corbyn, let's see how many actually pass the acid test of bothering to do a stroke come election time). Tokenism is little better - having anyone as your candidate for reasons other than merit is wrong.

I think more should be done for ethnic minority representation in parliament as well, but on the female issue I think part of the reason it is so pressing is due to the fact that women aren't a minority, they make up half of our society, yet face inequalities and a lack of representation. It's more than just tokenism, but part of creating a societal shift towards equality. Having a more equal parliament alongside attempts to further equality in society I think is important and will push the issue further up the agenda.

[jmothecat]

I should correct myself a little, she didnt directly laugh at the concept of male suicide, but she laughed at the idea that men have issues that should be discussed, but she did later on joke about the higher male mortality rate on twitter. She is absolute scum. Oh and women make up 40% of MP's in Labour according to her, so the situation isn't as dire as she make it out to be.


"During a parliamentary committee meeting on Thursday, Conservative MP Philip Davis suggested: “I thought that in the spirit of gender equality, it would only be right to have a debate to commemorate International Men’s Day,” which is on the 19th of November.

Explaining that; “Not only do we already have International Women’s Day, we also have women and equality questions every month in the chamber, which we don’t have for men, so the opportunity for men to raise issues that are important to them is very limited.”

At this point, Jess Phillips, the Labour MP for Birmingham Yardley, interrupted proceedings by loudly busting into laughter, covering her face with her hands.

“I’m not entirely sure why it’s so humorous,” replied Mr Davis as he paused for the interruption to pass, before going on to list the specific issues he proposed discussing during the debate:

“Such as men’s shorter life expectancy, wider men’s health issues, many of which go unreported because of embarrassment,” he said, as well as, “the high suicide rate amongst men, the propensity for violence against men… the underachievement of boys in education compared to girls,” and “the issues around father-child relationships.”

Mrs Philips immediately derided the suggestion: “You’ll have to excuse me for laughing, but the idea that men don’t have the opportunity to ask questions in this place is a frankly laughable thing,” she scoffed.

“As the only woman on this committee, it seems like every day to me is International Men’s Day,” she added. “When I’ve got parity, when women in these buildings have parity, you can have your debate. And that will take an awfully long time.”

When Davis questioned her, she said: “In the fight for equality, I’m not sure the men on this list [of people who want to see the debate take place] necessarily have that much to fight for.”"

She then later tweeted 

 

User Actions   Follow Jess Phillips MPVerified account‏@jessphillips

Jess Phillips MP Retweeted Vic (@SpaceMidget75)

Apparently we don't die as much, hands up who is immortal #highlander

She's absolutely right.

[EdgarusQPFC]

9 minutes ago, jmothecat said:

 

She's absolutely right.

 

I disagree, the last thing she is interested in is equality.

Based on her logic that in order for there to be equality, we should prohibit one group til we have equality. Then we should be immediately stopping anyone from a ethnic minority from joining the NHS.

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN01156

"Currently around 6% of Members of both Houses are from an ethnic minority background. This compares with 13% of UK population. The share of non-white population is the most proportionally represented in the Civil Service (11%), whereas the NHS has the largest share of ethnic minority staff (18%)."

So based on her approach we should curb Ethnic minority staff until they are at 13% That is a ridiculous position to make.

Edited October 16, 2016 by EdgarusQPFC

[Cream Cheese]

9 hours ago, strichener said:

I agree with all of this.  However, if the SNP do not offer the option of Independence outside of the EU then they are going to lose people who voted Yes in the last referendum.  Not to mention those that have lost interest in the whole process, as my wife has done.

How can the SNP possibly offer both? 

[jakedee]

I agree with all of this. However, if the SNP do not offer the option of Independence outside of the EU then they are going to lose people who voted Yes in the last referendum. Not to mention those that have lost interest in the whole process, as my wife has done.

I'm sure after Independance there will be a "Scotland out the EU" party of some shape or form.Voters who wish to leave the EU can attempt to get them to a position where a referendum can be proposed.Then as in most democracies the people can decide.

[renton]

20 hours ago, strichener said:

I agree with all of this.  However, if the SNP do not offer the option of Independence outside of the EU then they are going to lose people who voted Yes in the last referendum.  Not to mention those that have lost interest in the whole process, as my wife has done.

I don't see why that should happen, nor do I think there is a point in the SNP offering the out of EU option. Given that the only reason we might be getting a 2nd IndyRef is on the back of that "change of circumstance", to offer up front, an out of EU option would be to undermine the entire case being put forward. If your in favour of Scottish independence, but want out of the EU, then it's time to play a longer game. There is nothing to stop committed anti-EU/pro-Indy campaigners grouping together to advocate that, but they'd be far better off for both the Indy cause and themselves, by lining up behind Sturgeon now, and then post independence, launching a bid to get us out when they'd be assured the support of the other Eurosceptics in the Labour and particularly Tory parties. Getting all up in a huff about it now fatally undermines both objectives, if your of gthat pro-Indy/anti EU persuasion, in my opinion anyway.

Edited October 17, 2016 by renton