Granny Danger Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Thought it would be useful to have a thread taking about policies from this point on. I'm very much in favour of this, however it would be very hypocritical of Labour if they push this in Holyrood but not Westminster. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-scotland-36238232 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetwiseHercules Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Not sure about the second jobs ban myself. But the committees should be proportional. They were last time too as SNP had a majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 What advantage do the opposition derive from the independent referee not being from the SNP? As with most parliaments, the referee has to give up political influence and can only vote to break a tie. Even then, there are conventions on how they should vote. In general they're expected to vote down bills at final reading or vote for them in first readings (either way encouraging further debate) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 "And it isn't for any single MSP or party - certainly not those who lost the election by a country mile - to try and dictate terms. "The SNP government will seek to work with all parties to find consensus wherever possible, if it is in the interests of the people of Scotland. "At the same time, Ruth Davidson and Labour need to respect the verdict of voters across Scotland, who have handed the SNP an overwhelming victory at this election and with it a clear mandate from the public to deliver on our manifesto commitments." I like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 The second job ban would be ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 8, 2016 Author Share Posted May 8, 2016 The second job ban would be ridiculous. That must be your shortest post in a while. I've not read the details but I'd be in favour of a ban on any second job that paid in any way. If MSPs want to carry out any unpaid work out with their 'day job' they can. Though I'd rather they devoted their time to being elected representatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Doctor will get mentioned a lot on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 No it's a terrible idea to ban second jobs. Asides anything else, every single government Minister has a second job, making it a ridiculous double standard. We need diversity and experience in the Parliament and that means allowing people to keep their hand in the work they've done before. Plenty people will be in positions which are if anything complementary to their jobs as MSPs. There can be a reasonable discussion about banning lobbying/consultancy-style second jobs, but I think it's mad that you'd ban, say, a doctor, an academic or a lawyer, from doing one or two days a week at their old job or covering a colleague for modest payment. This ban would also presumably force entrepreneurs to cease to run their own businesses, shafting people like Tommy Sheppard. The alternative to this is that we significantly discourage people in established professions, especially those with young families and an appreciation of the challenges associated with that, from entering Parliament, typically taking a substantial pay-cut in the process. The alternative ways these people will find to pay their way are actually ones the progressive left should consider less desirable. It means people will make additional income through things like buy-to-let landlording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Elaine Smith being talked about as a Presiding Officer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 8, 2016 Author Share Posted May 8, 2016 No it's a terrible idea to ban second jobs. Asides anything else, every single government Minister has a second job, making it a ridiculous double standard. We need diversity and experience in the Parliament and that means allowing people to keep their hand in the work they've done before. Plenty people will be in positions which are if anything complementary to their jobs as MSPs. There can be a reasonable discussion about banning lobbying/consultancy-style second jobs, but I think it's mad that you'd ban, say, a doctor, an academic or a lawyer, from doing one or two days a week at their old job or covering a colleague for modest payment. This ban would also presumably force entrepreneurs to cease to run their own businesses, shafting people like Tommy Sheppard. The alternative to this is that we significantly discourage people in established professions, especially those with young families and an appreciation of the challenges associated with that, from entering Parliament, typically taking a substantial pay-cut in the process. The alternative ways these people will find to pay their way are actually ones the progressive left should consider less desirable. It means people will make additional income through things like buy-to-let landlording. Why am I not surprised you are championing this. An MSP earns significantly more than the national average wage. If people earning more than this genuinely want to become elected representatives in our democracy it's a small price to pay. If they don't it's no huge loss. If it's so important let them do it unpaid. Then we will see just how important it is for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Doctor will get mentioned a lot on this thread Quite. It would be nice to get a response to that from the people who think "highly-paid second jobs" are a pressing issue for Parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRob72 Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 "And it isn't for any single MSP or party - certainly not those who lost the election by a country mile - to try and dictate terms. "The SNP government will seek to work with all parties to find consensus wherever possible, if it is in the interests of the people of Scotland. "At the same time, Ruth Davidson and Labour need to respect the verdict of voters across Scotland, who have handed the SNP an overwhelming victory at this election and with it a clear mandate from the public to deliver on our manifesto commitments." I like it Interesting! A clear mandate to run a minority government reliant on the support of a party that secured just 13,000 Constituency Votes? Let's wait and see who exactly will 'dictate terms' !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Interesting! A clear mandate to run a minority government reliant on the support of a party that secured just 13,000 Constituency Votes? Let's wait and see who exactly will 'dictate terms' !!It won't be reliant on the support of one party though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Why am I not surprised you are championing this. An MSP earns significantly more than the national average wage. If people earning more than this genuinely want to become elected representatives in our democracy it's a small price to pay. If they don't it's no huge loss. If it's so important let them do it unpaid. Then we will see just how important it is for them. I'm all for banning elected representatives from consultancy/advisory jobs, but as doulikefish has alluded to, Phillipa Whitford. Is it wrong that she stands in for the NHS when they have a shortage of surgeons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 What about the guy from Falkirk mcnally? He still owns his barber shop although I dunno if he actually ever performs haircuts or just has his staff do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Elaine Smith being talked about as a Presiding Officer? IIRC Labour have never provided a referee so it seems like their turn. I'd personally choose Douglas Ross because he knows a thing or two about refereeing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Interesting! A clear mandate to run a minority government reliant on the support of a party that secured just 13,000 Constituency Votes? Let's wait and see who exactly will 'dictate terms' !!Its pretty obvious who will "dictate terms"Heres a clue it aint someone called ruth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Isn't it remarkable that Labour only started caring about MSPs having more than one job the moment their own MPs, MSPs and councillors find themselves with no jobs at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 "And it isn't for any single MSP or party - certainly not those who lost the election by a country mile - to try and dictate terms. "The SNP government will seek to work with all parties to find consensus wherever possible, if it is in the interests of the people of Scotland. "At the same time, Ruth Davidson and Labour need to respect the verdict of voters across Scotland, who have handed the SNP an overwhelming victory at this election and with it a clear mandate from the public to deliver on our manifesto commitments." I like it Interesting! A clear mandate to run a minority government reliant on the support of a party that secured just 13,000 Constituency Votes? Let's wait and see who exactly will 'dictate terms' !! C'mon Rob you're just shit stirring for the sake of it. These quotes I show are the truth and ye cannae deny them. And remember it was the UK parliament with the inbuilt English majority that decided the make-up of the Scottish parliament. It's just a pity they didnae make the same arrangements for Westminster - warts and all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Interesting! A clear mandate to run a minority government reliant on the support of a party that secured just 13,000 Constituency Votes? Let's wait and see who exactly will 'dictate terms' !! I think you will find that Labour and the Lib Dems will be fighting each other off to be the SNPs BFFs. They now both know what happens when you campaign and govern with Tories. They have already told Ruth to shut it and sit down this weekend. The 20%ers will be left stamping their feet as Scotland moves forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.