Mr Bairn Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Looking like it'll be between JoLa and Ken Macintosh for the P0 Isn't that a re-run of the labour leadership contest from a few years back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 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. I'm not backtracking over anything and I don't care what people think of my opinion, maybe you do.1. By that logic if I disagree with the 'people who govern the country' on any issue then I am wrong? What if I disagree with the Tory government on a UK wide issue would I be wrong the too? You've obviously not thought that through. 2. Talks about personal attacks as justification for an accusation of 'seething' then accuses someone of 'talking shite'. Mmm... 3. There was no consensus at any point that 'we' were talking about a minimal of work. As things stand there is nothing to stop and MP or MSP spending more time doing work outwith their Parliamentary duties than within them. So, all in all, you're not doing very well. The only thing I'll concede on here is that my opinion is in the minority. But everyone holds a minority view at one time or another, it doesn't make them wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 If I disagree with something that the UK government are doing, I tend to know that I'm on the right side of the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 I'm not backtracking over anything and I don't care what people think of my opinion, maybe you do. 1. By that logic if I disagree with the 'people who govern the country' on any issue then I am wrong? What if I disagree with the Tory government on a UK wide issue would I be wrong the too? You've obviously not thought that through. 2. Talks about personal attacks as justification for an accusation of 'seething' then accuses someone of 'talking shite'. Mmm... 3. There was no consensus at any point that 'we' were talking about a minimal of work. As things stand there is nothing to stop and MP or MSP spending more time doing work outwith their Parliamentary duties than within them. So, all in all, you're not doing very well. The only thing I'll concede on here is that my opinion is in the minority. But everyone holds a minority view at one time or another, it doesn't make them wrong. You should be a politician with that level of deflection. Of course most of your response has no correlation to what I actually said, instead you have twisted it to enable you to reply. But you already knew that didn't you? 1. When on earth did I say that? I simply stated the facts that I believe you to be wrong and that view is commonly shared by Governments across Britain. Absolute nonsense from you. 2. Would it make you feel better if I said you were in fact not 'seething'? For someone who claims not to care what other people think of his opinions you seem particularly precious on this point. 3. I am sorry that bears so little relevance to what I actually said I am not going to even bother taking you to task over it. I am glad you recognise you're in the minority. That is progress comrade. No more weasel words, let us just agree to disagree. Or that you're wrong, either or... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 How much do MSPs get paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Takes it down to 1 for SNP to get a majority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 How much do MSPs get paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Surprised the salary isn't more than that, being an elected representative must be a very involved, varied and demanding job. Also, it's kind of bizarre to say, as someone did earlier in the thread, that MSPs shouldn't have paid second jobs but if they want to do outside work they should do it for free. Isn't the case against second jobs that there's either a conflict of interest or a draw on an elected representatives time rather than them making money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Also, it's kind of bizarre to say, as someone did earlier in the thread, that MSPs shouldn't have paid second jobs but if they want to do outside work they should do it for free. Isn't the case against second jobs that there's either a conflict of interest or a draw on an elected representatives time rather than them making money? Quite. And yet you have GD here arguing vociferously in favour of it for precisely the wrong reason. Incidentally, the reason that the POTUS is on the fairly trivial salary of $400k a year (which would just about pay for one phone campaign in Idaho during election season) is that the theory was that only men who had already made it could really be trusted in the position. Meanwhile we pay Michelle Mone three hundred quid a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonwell Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Surprised the salary isn't more than that, being an elected representative must be a very involved, varied and demanding job. Also, it's kind of bizarre to say, as someone did earlier in the thread, that MSPs shouldn't have paid second jobs but if they want to do outside work they should do it for free. Isn't the case against second jobs that there's either a conflict of interest or a draw on an elected representatives time rather than them making money? You are of course quite right. All Parliamentarians are meant to disclose all interest's in order to avoid conflict's in their Parliamentary duties. The arguments being put forward on this thread as reason's why elected representative's shouldn't have 2nd jobs are ridiculous tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Johann Lamont and Ken Macintosh have thrown their names into the ring for Presiding Officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colkitto Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Johann Lamont and Ken Macintosh have thrown their names into the ring for Presiding Officer. The irony of Lamont who campaigned against even having a Scottish parliament in the first place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Lamont's too high profile IMO. Obviously they're all members of a party so of course every MSP is going to be partisan to an extent, but there needs to be some level of trust that they're capable of being balanced. As an extremely belligerent former party leader who still harbours so much resentment towards the SNP that she can only refer to Alex Salmond as 'that man' and can't even bring herself to look at him while sitting at the same table and talking about him on live TV, there's got to be some concern over her ability to treat all parties equally. No such concerns with Macintosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Lamont's too high profile IMO. Obviously they're all members of a party so of course every MSP is going to be partisan to an extent, but there needs to be some level of trust that they're capable of being balanced. As an extremely belligerent former party leader who still harbours so much resentment towards the SNP but that she can only refer to Alex Salmond as 'that man' and can't even bring herself to look at him while sitting at the same table and talking about him on live TV, there's got to be some concerns over her ability to treat all parties equally. No such concerns with Macintosh. Aye, I'm not sure how well parliament would work if the presiding officer thought of half of the parliament as a 'virus'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 Surprised the salary isn't more than that, being an elected representative must be a very involved, varied and demanding job. Also, it's kind of bizarre to say, as someone did earlier in the thread, that MSPs shouldn't have paid second jobs but if they want to do outside work they should do it for free. Isn't the case against second jobs that there's either a conflict of interest or a draw on an elected representatives time rather than them making money? I'm all in favour of MPs and MSPs being paid more. The level of salary is far below that commensurate with the responsibility IMO. But increasing it would be a hard sell. The reason I said they could work for free is in a previous discussion it was suggested that doing 'outside' work had the advantage of ongoing exposure to outside interests so they would be so insulated. My argument is if that's really the reason, rather than making additional money, then they can have that exposure by offering their services for free. We would then see the real motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 I'm all in favour of MPs and MSPs being paid more. The level of salary is far below that commensurate with the responsibility IMO. But increasing it would be a hard sell. The reason I said they could work for free is in a previous discussion it was suggested that doing 'outside' work had the advantage of ongoing exposure to outside interests so they would be so insulated. My argument is if that's really the reason, rather than making additional money, then they can have that exposure by offering their services for free. We would then see the real motivation. There is nothing wrong with "having more money" being either the only or a codependent rationale for doing the additional work for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 10, 2016 Author Share Posted May 10, 2016 There is nothing wrong with "having more money" being either the only or a codependent rationale for doing the additional work for money. You and I disagree on this issue. You're view seems to be the majority one. I have nothing further to add to the points I have made. However I do think having the majority agree with you is the only reason you want to keep the debate going as normally you're getting your arse kicked by all and sundry. Milk it for all its worth Tory boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Looking like it'll be between JoLa and Ken Macintosh for the P0 Ken over Jola for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 Surely one of the key components for the role of the Scottish equivalent of speaker is actually being able to speak. With Lamont's terriers arsehole mouth, she surely fails to meet this fairly basic criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted May 10, 2016 Share Posted May 10, 2016 And another thing, in one of Ruthy's first speeches after the landslide she apparently won she said she'd block or at least delay the named person scheme. Can she actually manage that? I hope not because of all the twaddle that politicians of all sides spout, the NPS is the most obviously good and easy to understand policy I've ever heard. It's also the one I read and heard the most outright lies about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.