thplinth Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 It is a delicious irony in this now that the only way the Tories and now it seems Labour can have a future in Scotland is if Scotland becomes independent… and they can then reinvent themselves as new left & right wing positioned parties in a new Scottish parliament. But of course they would rather extinguish themselves politically in Scotland than allow that. Some turkeys do indeed vote for Christmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Also I think the reason the SNP is the preferred host now is because it is identifiably the most 'Left' of the main parties in Scotland. But it is still not left and nor is it right. It is not about left or right as you well know. The SNP is a specific tool designed for a specific job. You don't pick up a hammer and then ask it why is it not a screwdriver. The fact is you are much more likely to achieve (more) social justice as an independent Scotland than as North Britain. How do I know? Well we supported the Labour party throughout it's entire existence, during its darkest times, during the height of Thatcherism and beyond... It was only when the Labour party sold everyone out did finally this start to crumble, and even then it was relucatantly. Scotland would have been a better place to live had we voted Yes because it has a more left leaning mentality than the UK as a whole. This is obvious in her long support of the labour party something that was totally taken for granted and treated with familar contempt in the end. Well now the left has no home and they have no one to blame but themsleves. That's lazy Plinthy. You seem to be suggesting that a campaign for independence can't be built on social justice... Because it would be rejected, but then allude that it's only deliverable with independence. Social attitude surveys show that despite a slightly more liberal attitude to immigration, Scotland and Englands economic and social attitudes are identical. The challenges of building a fairer society are identical in the UK and iScotland, no easier either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 I agree, although not as strongly as I did before the referendum. The Referendum showed there are far more selfish khunts in Scotland than I'd ever imagined. Impoverished areas voting Yes, while affluent areas returned big No votes was soul destroying. A big feck you from the well-off to the poor. Agreed. Although I feel just as strongly about independence now as I did before the vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolhibby Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 Is this guy for real? https://twitter.com/robertmcneill2/status/569577347579576321 J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted February 23, 2015 Share Posted February 23, 2015 That's lazy Plinthy. You seem to be suggesting that a campaign for independence can't be built on social justice... Because it would be rejected, but then allude that it's only deliverable with independence. Social attitude surveys show that despite a slightly more liberal attitude to immigration, Scotland and Englands economic and social attitudes are identical. The challenges of building a fairer society are identical in the UK and iScotland, no easier either way. That is not borne out by the ballot box. How many Labour Westminster MPs are in Scotland right now versus the other parties. How long has it been like that. The SNP is not about policies it is about power. After that it will be up to the Scottish parliament to decide what they want. You want to put the cart before the horse. And in doing so you will achieve neither independence nor better social justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm sorry, but the SNP are not an option for any left leaning chap or chapette. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/snp-signs-no-strike-deal-with-scots-prison-staff-1-3697919 http://scotsnewsonline.info/10168/letter-to-scotsman-editor-from-prisoner-officer-association/ "I am at a loss in understanding why a trade unions dispute being resolved without strike action is a problem for some. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 http://scotsnewsonline.info/10168/letter-to-scotsman-editor-from-prisoner-officer-association/ "I am at a loss in understanding why a trade unions dispute being resolved without strike action is a problem for some. " It's absolutely super that an issue can be resolved without strike action, it's the terms of the deal that is the issue: "What was made crystal clear to the members in the ballot was that acceptance of the deal would mean our dispute would be resolved, and we would not be balloting for strike action on this issue through the existing pay deal period." A deal has been negotiated where hard up workers will need to stump up £2,000 should an issue arise in the next 24 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 It's absolutely super that an issue can be resolved without strike action, it's the terms of the deal that is the issue: "What was made crystal clear to the members in the ballot was that acceptance of the deal would mean our dispute would be resolved, and we would not be balloting for strike action on this issue through the existing pay deal period." A deal has been negotiated where hard up workers will need to stump up £2,000 should an issue arise in the next 24 months. They've been given the £2000, as part of the deal I thought? And if they aren't happy with the deal, and choose to strike, they forfeit the £2,000? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 (edited) They've been given the £2000, as part of the deal I thought? And if they aren't happy with the deal, and choose to strike, they forfeit the £2,000? They have. As a Tamber correctly pointed out this morning the deal was for a bonus of £2,000, if there is an issue in the next 24 months the workers will be required to pay back £2,000 in order to take action. This is fair enough, the issue that Trade Unionists have, is that no Trade Union, or association in this instance should be recommending that their workers accept an offer with such a clause attached. The gentleman who wrote the letter above is one of the people who recommended that the deal be accepted, so it's no surprise that he be defending it. tl;tr - No government or Trade Union should negotiate or accept a deal that requires it's workers to give up their rights. Edited February 24, 2015 by Scunnered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toepoke Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 Is this guy for real? https://twitter.com/robertmcneill2/status/569577347579576321 Apparently not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 It's absolutely super that an issue can be resolved without strike action, it's the terms of the deal that is the issue: "What was made crystal clear to the members in the ballot was that acceptance of the deal would mean our dispute would be resolved, and we would not be balloting for strike action on this issue through the existing pay deal period." A deal has been negotiated where hard up workers will need to stump up £2,000 should an issue arise in the next 24 months. But is it not part of a pay deal for the next two years? That reduces one of the major causes of industrial action, especially in the public sector. Although, I agree that it puts both the staff and the TU in a difficult position should any other issue arise and I think they taking a gamble by recommending the deal to their members. For this reason I wouldn't have voted in favour of it (and it is a f*ck of a sight better than the deal I'm likely to be offered this year, financially anyway) but put it to their members they did. Democracy has spoken. So while I am still unimpressed I am less unimpressed than I was. The right to strike has not been removed from Prison Officers in Scotland, as the original article implies (although a large disincentive has been put in place). Bar ritually impaled gerbils it was almost exactly the anti-SNP hatchet job I expected (funny how an essentially right-wing conservative newspaper can suddenly act all black afronted over an issue it would usually frown upon when an opportunity to attack the Scottish Government and by extension the SNP presents itself). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted February 24, 2015 Share Posted February 24, 2015 I was furious. Then I was furious about this: https://commonspace.scot/articles/465/350m-scottish-government-water-contract-reportedly-set-to-go-to-controversial-private-firm-in-england And then the Buchanan steps... And now I'm scouring the Internet for something else to be furious about. Not really. Kinda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petrocelli Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 That's not true Scunnered. The deal is in relation to the payment only. The POA were conducting a ballot over pay and were offered an interim payment outwith pay with a commitment to address their concerns at a later date, due to public sector pay policy not allowing resolution to their issues at present. The members accepted the offer (84% of those who voted) in a ballot of the membership. This resolved the dispute and means they see no need to continue a ballot for industrial action over pay for the duration of the 2 year pay deal. They are still within their rights to strike for any other reason i that time, should they choose to do so. In fact, they can strike for any reason they like if they so choose, as there are no tie ins that restrict their ability to do so. The deal simply refers to the SPS reserving the right to consider recovering funds from individuals in the unlikely event the union strikeover pay in that timeframe. Hardly surprising given the deal that was struck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.