Granny Danger Posted May 8, 2016 Author Share Posted May 8, 2016 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? If it so important I'm sure she would do it without payment. The thing is there will be folk who will use the most extreme examples to argue against what is an eminently sensing inlet idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib 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 couldn't care less if they earn significantly more than the national average wage. Being an MSP is a significantly more than average job. Legislators in the UK are significantly underpaid compared to the rest of Western Europe. They should be paid a lot more than they are at the moment. I think it's ridiculous to expect people to do bona fides actual work for which anyone else would be paid a salary for free just because they're also an MSP. I'm not even remotely interested in taking you seriously on this unless you are also advocating that government ministers should not be paid a penny more than ordinary MSPs. Do you? If it so important I'm sure she would do it without payment. The thing is there will be folk who will use the most extreme examples to argue against what is an eminently sensing inlet idea. No this is nonsense. They are talented and skilled people who provide valuable services towards the public good. They should not be expected to do this for nothing just because they're an MSP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 8, 2016 Author Share Posted May 8, 2016 I couldn't care less if they earn significantly more than the national average wage. Being an MSP is a significantly more than average job. Legislators in the UK are significantly underpaid compared to the rest of Western Europe. They should be paid a lot more than they are at the moment. I think it's ridiculous to expect people to do bona fides actual work for which anyone else would be paid a salary for free just because they're also an MSP. I'm not even remotely interested in taking you seriously on this unless you are also advocating that government ministers should not be paid a penny more than ordinary MSPs. Do you? No this is nonsense. They are talented and skilled people who provide valuable services towards the public good. They should not be expected to do this for nothing just because they're an MSP. If this is you not taking another poster seriously, how many paragraphs/posts/hours do you dedicate to those you do take seriously? FWIW I see being a government minister as being an extension and an integral part of being an MSP or MP. I have no problem someone being paid more for that added responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 If it so important I'm sure she would do it without payment. The thing is there will be folk who will use the most extreme examples to argue against what is an eminently sensing inlet idea. Clearly it is the people bringing up real-world anecdotes who are living in the clouds here, and not the people pishing themselves with fear over fabricated tabloid scandals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 If this is you not taking another poster seriously, how many paragraphs/posts/hours do you dedicate to those you do take seriously? 47. FWIW I see being a government minister as being an extension and an integral part of being an MSP or MP. I have no problem someone being paid more for that added responsibility. It's clearly not an extension. The purpose of being an MSP is to legislate and to represent your constituents. The purpose of a Minister is to lead administration policy decisions and to represent the government. If anything it is a direct conflict of interest in the way that many jobs outside of Parliament are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 Luv all this unionist pish... snp and pro independence parties will govern Scotland and provide the majority of Scottish mps to London... until independence is achieved. No later than 2025.... Unionists ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StreetwiseHercules Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 It hurts to say it, but Ad Lib's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Willie Posted May 8, 2016 Share Posted May 8, 2016 . Unionists ) Whit they like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Johan lamont in the running for presiding officer. Could she be relied upon to play fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Bairn Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Johan lamont in the running for presiding officer. Could she be relied upon to play fair? Can any of them really? Last time when the SNP had a full majority they were happy enough to provide the referee to get the good end of the stick. This time with every vote being absolutely key in the hung parliament, no side will really want to give up an MSP. I'd like to see Labour provide the speaker on this occasion because they've never done it so far. It was a Lib Dem in the first parliament, then SNP, then Alex Fergusson of the Tories then SNP again. Time for Labour to take the hit. Also wouldn't mind seeing Alison Johnstone or Mark Ruskell from the Greens being one of the deputy presiding officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Johan lamont in the running for presiding officer. Could she be relied upon to play fair? No. She's an embittered tribal fool. On top of that, I can barely understand her mumbling at the best of times. A presiding officer who thinks we're not genetically programmed to make political decisions would be amusing though. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 9, 2016 Author Share Posted May 9, 2016 ROFL. Oh aye a surgeon is going to quite happily open you up and perform a risky surgery, risking his reputation if things go wrong for example FOR FREE. You have to be taking the fucking piss with this LOL. If a surgeon wants to carry out operations they should remain a surgeon. If they want to stand for elected office they should be willing to accept they will no longer be carrying out operations. You strike me as being of low intelligence and poorly educated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 Granny v Oaksoft episode VXIII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Lambies Doos Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 That would perhaps have been funnier if you had the slightest grasp of roman numerals. Yup, my error.. XVIII Too late I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 9, 2016 Author Share Posted May 9, 2016 Fortunately you will never be deciding such things. Under your tutelage the government would be stuffed with underachievers. Says the guy who has never achieved anything. And probably never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 It hurts to say it, but Ad Lib's right. Indeed. God help me but for once Ad Lib is bang on the money. Every dog has their day etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 If a surgeon wants to carry out operations they should remain a surgeon. If they want to stand for elected office they should be willing to accept they will no longer be carrying out operations. You strike me as being of low intelligence and poorly educated. You at times make some good point elsewhere in the forum but on this you're flat out wrong and to coin a phrase come across as a 'seething mess'. We want our Msp's/Mp's to be of the highest quality. If we make people choose in the way you suggest it would gravely effect the quality of politician in our country. Beside's that the Msp's/Mp's who I've come across who have 2nd jobs do it in their own personal time and in no way effects their parliamentary or constituency duties. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do a minimal amount of work on the side in their own time and that is what we're talking about here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 9, 2016 Author Share Posted May 9, 2016 You at times make some good point elsewhere in the forum but on this you're flat out wrong and to coin a phrase come across as a 'seething mess'. We want our Msp's/Mp's to be of the highest quality. If we make people choose in the way you suggest it would gravely effect the quality of politician in our country. Beside's that the Msp's/Mp's who I've come across who have 2nd jobs do it in their own personal time and in no way effects their parliamentary or constituency duties. There is absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do a minimal amount of work on the side in their own time and that is what we're talking about here. What a very strange post: 1. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of opinion. 2. There's none of my posts on this subject that could be described as 'seething'. 3. You then say MSPs and MPs should be allowed to do 'a minimal amount of work on the side' which strongly suggests that there should be restrictions. I do not believe for one second that excluding elected members from holding other paid employment would impact upon the quality of candidates willing to stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted May 9, 2016 Share Posted May 9, 2016 What a very strange post: 1. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of opinion. 2. There's none of my posts on this subject that could be described as 'seething'. 3. You then say MSPs and MPs should be allowed to do 'a minimal amount of work on the side' which strongly suggests that there should be restrictions. I do not believe for one second that excluding elected members from holding other paid employment would impact upon the quality of candidates willing to stand. 1. It is my opinion that you're wrong. That opinion is also held by the people who govern the country.2. You resorted to a personal attack over the Internet of another person who you've never met. That seems pretty seething to me. (I will concede on this point that Oaksoft probably deserve's it with his inane rambling's). 3. No, what I said was that in practice what we're talking about is a minimal amount of work done in their own time. Also you never mentioned restrictions, you have called for an all out ban. Unfortunately you're back tracking because you have realised you are talking shite. It's ok to admit you're wrong, no-one will think any less of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kejan Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Looking like it'll be between JoLa and Ken Macintosh for the P0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.