How will the economy be affected by SNP MPs; will it be for richer or for poorer and

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Like I said, I'm not debating the rights and wrongs. But there are double standards at play. Whereby some seem to be held to a somewhat higher standard than others are. We have one condescending remark in every single newspaper and media outlet touted as a sexist 'offence' and outrage.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=salmond+soubry&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=4CB0Vbj3MqPR7QbE84DIBw

But it's a joke to have Nicola Sturgeon ( and I'd say the same for any female politician ) to have their face photoshopped onto a revealing bikini clad body etc etc and mocked that way. Either both are 'jests', or both are 'offensive'. But Salmond shouldn't be held to a different standard than anyone else would be.

Both things are crap, just the spirit of the age where news has to be manufactured where there is none.

When the BBC first got going, if there wasn't any news that day they would play some music instead. Now every 24 hour news channel prays for a 'boy down the well' story and if they don't have one they go on about a silly picture in a comic or a man calling a woman 'woman'.

It's tedious and pointless. Like this stuff about Cameron being a misogynist because Charlotte Church (a Labour voter) found him a bit annoying when they met once. Cameron has probably done more to advance women in politics since the Tories accidentally made Lady Thatcher leader and the unions destroyed a shoo-in for Labour at the 1979 election which should have been held in 1978 anyway.

skintmacflint

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Not defending him of course, but he is guilty of using local language and his something his generation would likely have said.

I've at times said to my mates to "behave yersel min" (behave yourself man) but to be fair, If I was addressing a woman, I would just say "behave yersel". The woman part in the modern day could be construed as condescending, but for a man, they take it on the chin. Why is that?

it.

I'd agree it's local language, and something I'd say myself, using Man or Woman as the situation arose. My wife would also use the term Behave yourself woman. I'm about 10 or so years older than Salmond, so maybe it is an age thing. Although as an experienced politician he should perhaps be more aware and informed.

When I used a similar term on the other very long Scottish thread I was told I sounded like a 70s sexist by the posters who have thanked (which implies they agree with the logic ) of your above post

Politics eh.

skintmacflint

John Swinney meets George Osbourne today to discuss budgets and cuts of 170 million which affect Scotland.

Could be a short meeting.

IveSeenTheLight

.string. wrote: »

In making a clearly humorous remark to a person of his own sex?

No.

Is it not sexist to suggest you can only refer to gender to those of the same gender.

In UK law, discrimination includes sex, gender and gender identity.

If it's not acceptable to say to someone of the opposite sex, then it should not be acceptable to say to someone of the same sex.

You're clearly of the opinion that this is not gender discrimination if allowed as a "remark to a person of his own sex"

IveSeenTheLight

ggb1979 wrote: »

Oh everyone should stop being so bloody sensitive. Grow a pair (of your choosing) and deal with it.

Here, here.

Tried to say that in a couple of posts (#124 & #126)

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

maybe, you just need to take these things with a pinch of salt as opposed to being offended by them

Tromking

skintmacflint wrote: »

John Swinney meets George Osbourne today to discuss budgets and cuts of 170 million which affect Scotland.

Could be a short meeting.

Apparently Swinney thinks the cuts are unacceptable!:)
<snigger>

.string.

We all want to be rid of "austerity" and get back to a situation where we can afford less parsimonious Government expenditure. But the policy mandated to the Government is to achieve zero deficit in the lifetime of the current Parliament and from then on to be able to reduce the national debt.

The SNP think that a special case should be made for Scotland and that their policy of spending their way out of trouble, courtesy of UK tax payers, is the way to go.

Well they may say that, but the approach is so ludicrous that one can assume, barring their complete idiocy, that it is merely a Project Whinge ploy so they can stamp their feet when they don't get their way and claim their repeated lie that Westminster is anti Scots.

Well somehow I don't think the rest of us are enamored of the idea that there should be "investment" in. Scottish welfare and infrastructure merely to over-subsidise the bribes that have been paid by the SNP and enhance their next bid for separation, by burdening ourselves and our families with a greatly increased National Debt in the certain knowledge of the SNP's ambition to ride off into the sunset, refusing to pay their debts.

kabayiri

Tromking wrote: »

Apparently Swinney thinks the cuts are unacceptable!:)
<snigger>

I guess he has to in public.

However, we all know that the cuts will have to apply to every region. This includes Scotland, where there is great potential to save serious money.

The voters clearly voted for the austerity option - it's important that the government carries out what they promised.

IveSeenTheLight

kabayiri wrote: »

I guess he has to in public.

However, we all know that the cuts will have to apply to every region. This includes Scotland, where there is great potential to save serious money.

The voters clearly voted for the austerity option - it's important that the government carries out what they promised.

I agree, the UK government needs to carry out their manifesto.

The flip side on this topic though is that the Scottish electorate did not vote for the Conservative manifesto, only 14.9% did.

We also have to remember that the Conservatives indicated we would be better together and depending on the outcome, we shall see if indeed we are.

P.S. Please note that I am hopeful that the Conservative government is very successful in this next parliament for the good of us all. We have the government the UK voted for and respecting the result, we now want the whole country to suceed.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I agree, the UK government needs to carry out their manifesto.

The flip side on this topic though is that the Scottish electorate did not vote for the Conservative manifesto, only 14.9% did

Makes no difference: it was a UK election and Scotland voted to remain in the UK. They were offered a chance to leave and comprehensively rejected it.

The Conservatives will govern the whole of the UK, not just the bits that voted for it.