Be Excellent To Each Other

Lady on left has smashed the glass ceiling, lady on the right just keeps hitting her head.

It's completely illegal to discriminate against women, or to take any negative action against a pregnant lady, or one returning from maternity leave.

I think Mister YES was making things up to create a straw man and play an emotional and self-evidently correct argument.

"The current UK likes to eat babies! We'll stop people eating babies... you can't think eating babies is right, can you?"

Of course, I contract for a company with a fairly powerful female CEO.

Taking dietary advice from a scot is an interesting idea.

13 visits, 8 violations. That's practically a pass! also: 8/797 = 1%. We are 1% of Europe's evil doings. I like these stats.

1 in 4 children in poverty?

That's clearly bullshit

Sorry to condescend to you, but you must see how that just sounds incredibly naive.

You can't sack someone for pregnancy, nor can you give them no maternity pay. Check the facts: https://www.gov.uk/working-when-pregnant-your-rights

Now, as for 'women are paid less', that is a very typical statistic bandied about by neo-feminists who'd like you to believe that women are being suffocated under the whims of the patriarchy. The one I see most is 'women are paid 83p to a man's pound', except that doesn't take into account like for like pay in the same job. It's merely that, on the average, men hold higher paying jobs, NOT that they're paid more in the same job.

So, inequality. The only place where inequality can exist is where there's inequality of opportunity. If women are capable (i.e. not discriminated against) of applying for highly paid jobs, but simply choose not to, that's not because society is unequal. It means that for whatever reason, women just don't choose those career paths. This BBC article from last year talks about the 'gender pay gap' between men and women who studied the same subject, but cannot provide any proof that women are being discriminated against. It doesn't even try to speculate as to what other causes may be responsible for the observed figures - correlation does not imply causation.

It might actually just be that women (generalisation caveat here) are not going for the higher paid jobs, or are more willing to settle for a job that is easier to get but doesn't pay as much. Perhaps there is a problem with aspiration, in that women are not sufficiently encouraged to apply for the top posts, rather than those posts being barred to them for misogynistic patriarchy reasons. And of course, for those jobs where pay is based on ones ability to negotiate, that's entirely down to the individual. Less 'punchy' men and women alike will fail to achieve as high salaries as those who can negotiate harder.

So rather than inequality, more needs to be done to encourage women to aim higher, and fight harder, rather than to give them artificial advantages (which would be inherently sexist) on the basis of their sex.

EBG, that's all well and good, but there's a school of thought, with a great deal of evidence behind it, that there is discrimination within the hiring process.

Blind CV reading and readings where the CVs are given, say, Muslim or female names, show very different reactions. I think that while women (and all races) have the appearance of equality of opportunity, the reality is that, on the whole, middle class white men are more likely to employ middle class white men than they are women. They would all deny it, and many would not be aware of their own prejudice, but I recall there being some pretty damning studies out there.

Obviously it would be insanity to try to blanket legislate for this, and I would say it is irrelevant to the Scottish argument, but I believe it does occur a lot more than people think.

Just did a little reading around it.

Amazingly, both men AND women showed a cognitive bias towards hiring men over women. That's tragically funny.

Could is a whole world away from will or even will try.

I think you may find the grass to not be so green.

We did research on racial inequality in movies. We showed different people a random poster for the same movie, but each poster (I think there were six) showed the two main characters as people of varying colours (from white to black).

Nearly everyone said they were more likely to go and see the movie with white people, no matter what the race of the person filling in the questions.

I'm just repeating what I've heard, I can't say I've ever looking into it in much detail, so I apologise if I am incorrect.

Oh! something I've heard a few views on - The RBS is headquartered in Edinburgh. One of the things the Better Together guy said was "There is no way Scotland could afford to bailout the RBS if it crashes again" And I thik that's probably true, but do we need to bail it out? I heard somewhere that it depends on where the bank does buisness - so, for example, in 2008 america and England actually had to pay pretty much all of the bailout when RBS has problems, because that is where the RBS does the most buisness.

Is this true?

There was no requirement for any government to bail out the banks. The UK government bailed out RBS and Lloyds primarily because the UK economy would be hardest hit if the banks collapsed. Same in the US - those banks whose largest market was the US were bailed out by the US treasury. There's no regulation/law around it, it's just those governments were the ones who decided that the bailout was a preference to letting the banks collapse.

Ah, okay. Thanks

Maybe black people just don't want to be in successful movies badly enough, if I'm following EBG's logic; they need to be taught to aspire more or possibly work harder, or some other condescending bullshit.

It's great to say women can't be fired because of pregnancy, true in Holland as well, but that doesn't mean they are not passed over for a non-pregnant candidate, let go in their trial period of their contract, year contracts not renewed, no permanent contract granted or passed over for promotions.
And no the reason will never be "pregnancy" because that is illegal. The reason will be "someone else was more suitable for the job" which cannot be argued with.

If I had my own small business, I wouldn't hire young women. The risk and resulting cost is just too high.

My entire team is young women of similar age. Could get nervy in a couple of years.

I wonder who was in charge of hiring...

Funny you ask...

I suppose the thing is that it's something driven by social attitudes, and not the current government barring government control of media ala north korea. So its approximately 0% possible for scottish independence campaigners to say that scotland after independence it going to have different social attitudes as before independence.

Perhaps a convincing one if your already pro independence, but ultimately an utterly bollocks one.

I would imagine they'll run a mile if Scotland becomes independent.

Actually, isn't there some of rule about the amount of business the do in London meaning they wouldn't be Scottish if the countries split up, or something?

I'm possibly making that up.

At the end of the day, if you want the economic view then listen to businesses over politicians. They see to presently be against independence.

That's right Gaywood, strawman against something I manifestly didn't say to try to snarkily criticise I point I made about something else, while not contributing anything worthwhile on the subject yourself.

Unless you think Grim's anecdote about racial bias in film preferences is in some way equivalent towards sexual inequality in the workplace.

I also didn't say that this was the authoritative reason for the gender pay gap. I said it was a possibility, and moderated my statement with 'perhaps' and 'maybes' where appropriate, to demonstrate it's a possible explanation that contributes towards a perception that is not as simple as mere sexual bias. But don't stop to consider the possibilities, will you? No advance in critical thinking on the last time you responded to something I said anyway.


This reminds me of some comedy study - I think it was mentioned on the Infinite Monkey Cage? about a racial bias towards buying colours of cheese. White people were more like to buy white cheese, and Latino people more likely to buy coloured cheese? It was a bit tongue in cheek and poorly referenced, but somewhat amusing.

Consider also that a major reason for a potential bias against women - disappearing off to look after the family, is in part due to the inequality suffered by men in paternity leave. Historically men would get nothing at all, or perhaps a day at the discretion of the employer, and then they got one or two weeks.

Now, finally, groaning into the 21st century they are afforded 26 weeks leave in an 'either or' situation if the mother returns to work - although from what I can see they still aren't entitled for the extended leave of the second 26 weeks. For the first time, it's actually feasible for the man to be the primary caregiver to a newborn baby, whereas before it was financially and legally impossible to do so on the same terms as a woman. It doesn't matter if the man was predisposed towards wanting to do this or not - it wasn't really possible to do it anyway.

So recent is this change is that culture has not caught up and the utilisation of this opportunity between the sexes is not even - that will take time. Being out of the workplace for an extended period of time is undeniably detrimental to your career prospects. Not wanting to employ a woman because she might disappear to have kids is a real concern for a small employer, but at least now the same employer knows that a man starting a family has the same opportunity to disappear for 6 months.

So yes, there is a message there to women too - you don't have to be the one to look after the kid, you don't have to be the one to put your career on hold, and you don't have to enter the workplace after your degree knowing that in a few years you might have to take a year or two off. Are you seriously saying these factors and historical obligations on a potential mother might not moderate their aspirations when entering the workforce, and thereby limit their drive and potential to be career-focussed and high earners? It is of course possible to do both, but given the way the deck has been stacked in the past it's absolutely and clearly less likely to happen, and no doubt contributes a significant amount towards the observed pay gap.

Yes, no doubt subconscious bias exists in some people's minds that may lead their candidate selection. Many employers adhere to a strict point-scoring against qualifications and experience criteria to help ascertain who is the best candidate for the job to help limit employing people based on vague and nebulous assessments. Putting hiring criteria into a framework helps, but there will never be any magic bullet to prevent bias of some kind.

On a final note, there is always much discussion of the imbalance between men and women at the top-end of earners, but nobody ever complains about there being far too many male bin men, or far too many men in dangerous workplace jobs that *could* be fulfilled by a woman. Men typically account for 93% of workplace deaths. Imagine that figure was reversed and wonder about how news articles would be shrieking about why such a problem wasn't being addressed. People that discuss sexual inequality while assuming that men have nothing to complain about don't get a great deal of regard from me.

To say that the UK is significantly unequal is patent nonsense, certainly when pitched against an assertion that an independent Scotland would magically somehow fix problems that are ingrained in culture, regardless of government.

Just reading this - and I agree, and while in some situations that might be legitimate, it others I am sure it is not. You can of course go for unfair dismissal at an employment tribunal here, and my criticism of the current state is that it's recently been made more difficult to do this - I believe it's more expensive to set up the action now, and the timeframe to put the paperwork in is very tight.

Added the fact that your employer can be an unmitigated and absolute shitbag in the lies they will tell to try to get out of it. I recently supported a friend of mine who was sacked by a well-known internet website for allegedly failing to meet her targets.

She was actually meeting them, and so the dismissal was bullshit. It was unrelated but she fell pregnant right around the time she was sacked, and was so ill with morning sickness that she was admitted to hospital and only submitted her paperwork for the unfair dismissal at the last minute.

The lawyers tried to claim she'd submitted the paperwork late by insinuating the date she was given her notice was earlier than it actually was, and then tried to say that her claims of incapacity from morning sickness were not credible due to the fact that she'd been able to send a couple of emails and make a phone call to a solicitor in that time.

They basically stonewalled and delayed at every possible opportunity, trying to mount the pressure up on her to settle. The initial offer, which came in rather early, was pathetic, and it took over a year with various hearings and stays and attempts to derail the proceedings from the other side. They really were the most inconceivable bunch of amoral fucking shitbags I've ever had the displeasure to observe.

With a bit of help she was able to hold on and create the outward impression that she was unrattled by everything, but the stress with her newborn was making her ill. Eventually a decent settlement offer came in (at least 10x the original offer I believe), and she accepted it. It was tough stuff and I was glad I wasn't the one going through it. That side of the law can definitely be looked at - it far too heavily favours the giant fuckface multinational that cares absolutely nothing for the individual, who will send 8 lawyers from a fancypants firm to merely sit across the single applicant and glare at them while one of them asks questions to try to fuck them over.

Kern said:


Fair point, but not relevant to me. I want good governance first and foremost. There are indicators - and I plumb the depths of paranoia here - that a Nationalist/independent Scotland would be intolerant, authoritarian and dictatorial.

The lurch to the right in England countenanced by the rise of UKIP and the Labour party's Tory sounding 'tough love' is equally abhorrent and unattractive.

To put it in football terms - and being from the West Coast of Scotland, why not. Your statement is like walking into a bar and being asked by the barman if you're a protestant or a catholic. I would reply neither, I'm an atheist.

The barman would then ask me if I'm a protestant atheist or a catholic atheist.

Hopefully you see the dilemma. Spoiling the ballot shows I'm still keeping the faith with the idea of democracy. I'd rather there was a 'none of the above' option.

Regards

But we've already discussed that a No vote doesn't mean that you are voting for the status quo. The very fact there's a referendum on Scotland's membership of the UK means that a large number of Scottish people aren't happy with how things are right now (and they aren't alone, but that's another discussion entirely) and that further devolution is very much a near-certainty with a No vote. If your abstention means the Yes vote wins, how will you feel about that?

Dragging this up again, but it's really bothering me. It seems simply like the Yes guy was simply better at talking to you than the BT one was - because from the sounds of it he may as well have argued that the sky is green and trees are usually purple and the majority of you there would've been convinced enough to agree with him. Those arguments against the UK are just total made-up nonsense.

I agree with this sentiment; much of the 'Yes' side's arguments are absurd, half-arsed bollocks and speculation, yet they seem to resonate with an electorate hungry for 'change' of one type or another.

Conversely, though, I believe a more powerful effect on the final vote will simply be your average voter taking a good, hard look at the vociferous, often unpleasant, embittered, nihilistic and misanthropic hard core Yes support, and simply thinking "Above all, I don't want to be them".

"He was a brilliant talker, and when he was arguing some difficult point he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive."

You must be confused Cavey. According to all of the nats I've 'debated' with, that element doesn't exist! What you see is merely one or two individuals giving the rest a bad name. /s

American Nervoso


I'm going to be disappointed no matter the result. Whatever happens, I hope it's a convincing victory to whichever side. It would be unbearable for this to rumble on and on in a Neverendum. The past couple of years have already felt like a century.

A close result will give rise to some real acrimony. Despite the online hate-preaching extremists like Campbell and the Orangemen/SDL types, the debate is fairly civic. That might change.

I still don't follow your logic. Do you want Scotland to be an independent country?

If no, vote no. 'Malaise' is not a good excuse.

Unless you honestly don't know what your answer to the question is.

Surely the logical thing for longshanker to do would be to vote for whoever he thinks is going to get the most votes so as to make the outcome a more decisive one and avoid the drawn out painful argument that would be caused by a close finish and is his greatest fear. Abstaining still doesn't make sense. P.s. I still don't know which way to vote and will probably end up making a snap decision based on how I'm feeling on the day, nobody's argument is really swinging it for me. Its like that connect four thing where nobody wins. ( a cat's game?)

Stu has been the target of a Daily Mail hit piece.



I'm so conflicted.

It's the first time I've read an article in the Daily Mail and thought, yep, that's pretty spot on.

It's almost as if the story writes itself.

He's not going to be arsed about this one iota, in fact I bet he's loving every minute of the attention, polarised adoration/hate (which he'll wear as a badge of honour). Oh, and 150 Large.

I think the problems of poverty in Scotland are too complicated to be resolved just by moving to independence. To be honest, I'd have more confidence if the Scottish administration was dedicating itself to trying to solve these pressing problems using its existing powers and, where necessary, seeking the ones it doesn't have from Westminster, rather than distract everyone by this campaign.

"1.7 million users" is a very confused way of describing unique sessions on a blog.

And by confused, I think you mean 'wrong'

ElephantBanjoGnome:



It's the perfect excuse. I don't want to turn my back on England, but I do want to turn my back, constitutionally at least, on Westminster. There's no alternative option on the ballot paper so I'll be spoiling the ballot paper.


vegetables wrote:


What it really means is _utma cookies. The source for the 1.7 million figure is the FT feature on Campbell. The Daily Mail piece is a rehashed collation of old and new pieces from various sources, including AhDinnaeken.

Yeah read that and its pretty even handed for the Mail.

One of the many reasons I don't visit Whinge Over Scotland is that, apart from the fact he writes nothing but belm-handed shite, I wouldn't want to add myself to his view count, thereby increasing his self-belief that he holds sway over the masses. If the Mail is right (as much as I've never believed it to be), then his short-tempered willingness to say 'Fuck Scotland' if a majority vote no says pretty convincingly how little he thinks of 'his' country.

Longshanker - turn your back in the local, general, and european elections if you must, but I implore you not to sit on the fence for the referendum. Do something proactive if you want to effect some kind of change in the world, but your spoiled vote in this debate is nothing other than a gigantic waste of time. You might as well stay at home.

I wonder if this is down to people expecting the movie industry to be a racist industry and therefore expecting that it takes an interest in investing more money in movies with white leading characters and therefore better investment equalling higher quality movies that people (of all races) will elect to see rather than the movies with assumed lower investment?

Longshanker - your analogy was way off, re: the pub.

It's more the equivalent of the landlord saying, "Do you want a drink or not?" and you just sitting there doing nothing and shouting gibberish at him.

I don't mean that your opinion is gibberish, just that your 'vote' is counted the same way as a moron who genuinely doesn't know how to use a ballot.

Voting for something that people you dislike agree with is not an endorsement of them. If you disagree with invading Iraq, but so does, say, Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson, then voting against it does not mean you agree with them in general.

I follow Stu on Twitter and am thinking now I need to do one of my bi-annual log ons to Twitter to unfollow him, as I really don't like to think I'm adding to his statistics.

Is it wrong and cynical to find myself wondering what he'll do next to keep himself in crisps and Vimto once this referendum has happened?