FREEDOM!!!! [4]

{{ I also pointed out the SNP dont talk about independence all the time, they talk about the job of running the country. In fact I'd say about 80-90%of the time independence is mentioned by the SNP its in direct response to the unionists side raising it. Despite how the right wing media would like to present it the SNP have not stayed in power, and even increased their vote for 15 years by just going on about independence. They get elected for the day job except on the two occasions they have explicitly stood on a referendum mandate.

'Nobody said that would change.'- Lance

Oh, yes they did. All the unionist party leaders did via Gordon Brown's Vow. It promised extensive new powers and a federal Britain within one to two years. Sometimes also referred to as Devomax.
It was written in the last weeks of the referendum in response to polling showing the YES side ahead, and it was drafted in Westminster by all Unionist parties and signed by then PM David Cameron, Deputy PM from lib/dems (was coalition) Nic Clegg and Labour Leader Ed Miliband. It was then published in the most popular Scottish Newspaper the Daily Record as a vow to the Scottish people about how much more England would respect Scotland's voice going ahead if we voted to stay and promised to deliver the full Smith Commission recommendations (for basically a federal Britain) and was sold to the people by Brown himself in person (who despite how he is viewed in England always remained a popular and respected politician in Scottish).

The Daily Record itself said of the Vow- 'If the Tories fail to fully implement Smith in word and spirit, they will be ignoring the will of the Scottish people. And if there is ever a need for The Vow II, it will already be too late for the union.'

So how did the vows and the Smith recommendations go then after the Unionist side won?

It was lies. Here's what Brown later told the Commons Select Committee- “The Government [is] falling short on the delivery of the recommendations of the Smith Commission on Scottish Devolution and the case for action is enhanced if the government is unwilling to listen to alternative views,” and then to make matters worse when the Scottish Government tried to take Westminster to court of the failure to implement the Smith Commission in full we discovered that legally, the Smith Commission isnt worth the paper its written on. Its useless and offers no protections and no way to force the handing over of the powers promised within it.

So yes there were large changes to how the Union functions at a basic level that were promised to address the imbalance within the Union, and then never delivered.

addition- these days Brown tries to excuse the VOW- but fortunately this BBC interviewer wasnt having it-

}}

Hmmm. I quoted your words and you have changed your argument. You specifically said what the myth was and that I was perpetuating it... that is not true as wasn't your claim in that sentence.

And yes, of course they talk about running the country more because running the country still needs to happen.

On The Vow... can you tell me specifically where it says that a Scottish person's vote will count more than an English persons (or the others) when it comes to areas of UK interest? Also, can you tell me where in this vow that anything close to DevoMax was assured... or even suggested was possible?

I have just read an article from the time that seemed very clear clear that thus was not promised and very likely not workable.

It seems the people that were paying attention to the detail were very aware of what that all meant. Those that were hearing two conflicting sides and picked one without researching properly... well that's their own stupid fault.

{{ In my view you have insinuated both sides of the myth- that the SNP only talk about independence and that they want to hold referendums all the time, neither of which is true.

No one is suggesting that a Scottish persons vote should count more than a English persons, I certainly have never said so. I have said the system of the Union is clearly lopsided in favour of England because there is no other mechanisms to address it.
Pre and post Brexit are good examples, n a joint statement the devolved areas of the Uk plus Gibraltar put forward the proposal that it should take a majority in the straight numbers sense of votes, plus a majority of the constituents parts to agree to Leave before it could happen. But it was outright refused, no discussion, no debate.
Post Brexit Scotland proposed that as there were special rules for NI that included them remaining in the single market, Scotland should likewise remain in the single market in reflection of our vote to strongly remain. Again, dismissed out of hand, without any debate or consideration at all.

The Vow and Brown in particular did claim it was for a federal UK- you can hear him say so in the provided video at the time in his own words, you can watch his lectures on it from the time, promising just that, he even calls it Home Rule.

And that Vow and its message was carried across all media at the time in Scotland, all with a Unionist slant and no analysis or in-depth criticism as there was no independence backing paper in Scotland, and Sky News are right-wing and Unionist and its in the vested interest of the BBC to be so too. So I dont think you can just right off the electorate as it being their own fault they didnt look into the caveats, the fine print and the excuses. They were deliberately sold a lie. Several whoppers in fact- they were sold the lie a vote for independence would mean no EU membership and being forced to leave the EU. That a vote for the Union was the only way to secure EU membership. And that if we said NO to independence many more powers would be transferred to Scotland creating something very close to a federal UK or devomax. All lies. The only thing the electorate are guilty of is falling for it but to blame them is to blame the victims.}}

{{ So heres a bit of Westminster 'Yes. Minister' style logic.

The Scottish government wanted to pass legislation for a 2nd referendum, the Advocate General (Westminster top law person for Scotland) said they couldnt, as it probably wasnt in the list of things devolved parliaments can do- theyd have to get the Supreme Court to decide first if it was legitimate.

All well and good.

Except, the Advocate General has also been arguing with the Supreme Court that it shouldn't hear the case at all. With Westminster arguing the proper route is for legislation first.

So just to be clear- the Scottish parliament cant pass legislation for a new referendum as the top UK lawyer says the Court needs to rule first if they have the right to, but the same top lawyer is trying to persuade the Court to not hear the case at all because the legislation they blocked hasn't been passed yet!

Fortunately the Court were having none of these Tory games and have said they will hear the case in full. But it shows the sort of devious tricks and desperation Westminster will go to. }}

We often have various state legislatures pass legislation just so it will be challenged and force a court opinion. I don't think a court will typically make a ruling without such a legal challenge first.

{{ Its not that its going to the courts, its that they tried to create a catch 22. You cant proceed with passing the legislation till the court decides, whilst arguing to the court they shouldnt hear the case at all until the legislation is passed. }}

Yeah, I know...it's just that here the catch 22 wouldn't happen because the courts wouldn't pass a ruling until the legislation is passed in the first place.

{{ closest comparison I can imagine would be if a state tried to pass legislation covering an area that was solely governed by Federal law. Would the US courts then intervene before its passed to decide if the State has the legal right to do it, or only after the State passed it?

in the Scotish case its to find out if they even have the right to make the legislation in the first place, so the Court are acting before its even brought forward to decide. }}

the courts here only act if somebody files suit; they don't make pre-emptive rulings.

{{ British politics tend to try to keep the Courts out for the most part, Parliament being sovereign. There are parts of the British democratic system I find very undemocratic, and parts of the US democracy I feel the same about, somewhere in-between there is probably a good version! }}

{{ Nice little milestone for Scotland-

'Scotland has made public health history by making it the law for public settings to provide period products.
It is the first country in the world to protect the right to free sanitary products with new legislation that has come into force on Monday.
The Period Products Act means councils and education providers have to make the free items available to those who need them.'

Well done to the women who fought for this for years and made it happen and good on the SNP gov for finding a way to make it happen. }}

So the Tory leadership contest for who will be next PM drags on, tonight they wre in Scotland- their only Scottish date on the debate schedule, to an audience of Tory party faithful.
Naturally the topic of the SNP came up- both against another referendum as you'd expect and the usual tired old lines trotted out as to why, but mainly attacks on the SNP itself- promises of more oversight of the SNP government, of forcing Scotlands top civil servant to come to Westminster once a year and report on the government like the school sneak sent to Head Master to tell all.
Truss is also talking of increasing North Sea Oil and Gas production and piping water south for drought struck England- which sounds a lot to me like an Emperial move to take all our resources out of our country and into England.
And above all the repeated (ironically) mantra that all the SNP ever do is go on about independence and ignore the day job of governing.

It makes me wonder sometimes if anyone in England ever stops to wonder why the SNP keep winning massive percentages of the vote and being reelected if that is all they do?
As my above post shows they just passed legislation giving free sanitary products to those in direst need. Now it may not effect millions of people, it may only affect women and then only a minority of them- but for every one of those women it does effect, who no longer need to stuff socks with newspaper or stuff bread down their pants, its a huge step up in personal dignity, not to mention comfort and hygeine. In short its a policy that helps people who need help. And not in some patronising manner, not in some handout, but by making the law reflective of peoples actual needs, by making a law that actually has a direct postive effect on people's lives.
Thats why they keep getting relected. Folk in Scotland dont think the SNP do a wonderful job at everything, dont think our NHS is in the state it shoud be, or education and the ferry issue is a whole topic in itself- but when we look across the border at the mess of England and it so called governance, how much worse services there seem to be being run, how poorer their NHS and education and care services are in comparison, all the things the engish dont have- free prescriptions, free bus travel for elderly and under 18's, no evil bedroom tax and a host of others, the applaling merrygoround of Westminster leaders all from the exact same social class, background and 2 universities, why would you vote for what England has to offer? }}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:{{ Nice little milestone for Scotland-

'Scotland has made public health history by making it the law for public settings to provide period products.
It is the first country in the world to protect the right to free sanitary products with new legislation that has come into force on Monday.
The Period Products Act means councils and education providers have to make the free items available to those who need them.'

Well done to the women who fought for this for years and made it happen and good on the SNP gov for finding a way to make it happen. }}

What the fuck is this shit. A MAN is hired as the world first period dignity officer. WTF are the SNP  doing. Men dont have periods, how on earth can he talk about it.

https://news.sky.com/story/scottish-government-sparks-backlash-after-a-man-is-appointed-as-its-first-period-dignity-officer-12674418

Dunno. It's not like men have been queueing to listen women talking about "women problems" earlier. Hate to say it, but it might actually be a smart move.

{{ Figg sorry but that the silliest objection Ive heard in ages. Youve been drinking the GB news cool-aid again! Men dont have vaginas doesnt stop them being genocologisyts, men dont have wombs but men still deliver babies. Or do you need to have periods to be in charge of the administration of sanitary products to all public buildings? Why does an administrator need to have periods? What is this nonsense?
The article itself, buried under all the anti-SNP attacks even admits its mainly just adminsitration- "specifically focused on project management." You know getting sanitary towles and stuff into public buildings, setting up the supply lines, coordinating with producers, appointing people to stock them up, briefing staff on the changes the usual sort of stuff- none of which requires  bleeding to do.

Also you do realise that article is quoting the horrible human being Julie Hartley Brewer, and thispolicy makes it less stigmatic for the topic in general, and the menopause, to be one all of society can openly discuss and understand as men in especial have had a reluctance to want to even know the details in the past. Im all for anything that makes health topics more generally acceptable and less stigmatised in society.
It a policy that helps women in need- I honestly cant believe Figg you agree with the Tories that these women should not be helped in any way and should be stigmatised. This is a policy getting praise from womens groups around the world and is exactly why poeple kep voting SNP, policies that make actual differences improving peoples daily lives. And I'm pretty sure that if I was a woman who for whatever reason could not afford sanitary products I wouldnt give a shit if the person in charge of administring the policy was a man or a woman.}}

Nice try.
Ian Blackford is not from GBNews is he? Last time I looked he was from the SNP.

When asked about Grant’s appointment in an interview with Sky News, the Scottish National Party’s leader at Westminster Ian Blackford said it would be better to have women in these roles.
"I think it's important that we get the policy right, I think it's important that we implement it and I would have thought, as a principle, it would be far better that women are in these posts than anyone else,” he told the broadcaster.
"It's a policy that we should all be proud of. At the end of the day, I think there should be a priority of having women in place in these posts".

Of course having free access to sanitary products is good. Thats not my objection, and its not GBNews "Koolaid" first off he is not a doctor, but seemingly a random man, and secondly last time I looked The Independent is not a right wing newspaper either.

The Independent’s Maya Oppenheim commented: “This feels like a joke. Jason Grant – Scotland’s first ‘period dignity officer’ – will never know the indignity of being bullied at school for having a period, of leaking, of being unable to afford period items, despite these being routine things many women sadly know all too well."

Scottish MP Neale Hanvey wrote: “It is incomprehensible that a young male without lived experience of menstruation is an appropriate person to address the needs of pre-pubescent girls at this vulnerable stage of development.”

Tennis star Martina Navratilova called the news "ridiculous," writing in a tweet: "Have we ever tried to explain to men how to shave or how to take care of their prostate or whatever?!? This is absurd".
Is she a GBNews fascist too?
No, thought not. This time the SNP has fucked up.

"I believe I can make progress by proving this isn't just a female topic, encouraging conversations across all genders and educating and engaging new audiences."

I can't help but agree. Dudes talk to dudes.

I got the immediate reaction "man talking about periods? That doesn’t seem natural." Logic follows up with "And that is the problem. It shouldn't seem odd." So I say go for it.

It is out of the box thinking that looks like in the box thinking.

{ {I dont think they have Figg- I think they've brought in an excellent policy to help folk. And I still dont know what your objection to a man doing a job that is 90% administration and a bit of talking about it is? What disbars him? Just being a man? Not having periods?
That sounds a lot to me like' you cant play a gay character unless youre gay you dont understand what its like empathy is not a thing', and the like. As Amarie says why shouldnt it be normal for men to know more and undertand better? Whats the wrong here you object to other than he is a man? }}}}

What disingenuous tripe. From both of you.

If I had a teenage daughter I would refuse to allow some medically untrained random personal trainer explaining to her about periods. It is inappropriate and utterly creepy. A young man has no idea what it is like to experience the pain, embarrassment and inconvenience of menstruating, and having a young man talking to middle aged women about menopause is quite frankly taking the piss. No woman wants a medically untrained man explaining to her what she needs to do. Women want medically trained people with skin in the game. If he was a doctor that is fair enough but he isnt is he, he used to sell fags so what the fuck does he know.

{{ Should set the record straight first, as that article and some things said so far are inaccurate. He is not appointed by the SNP, it has nothing to do with them other than they passed the law, this man is appointed by the Tayside Local Authority to cover their regional area, some local councils have decided to employ someone to oversee it others have given it to existing departments, thats up to the local council. So he is not appointed for Scotland, just 1 region of it.
Secondly he is not there to explain anything about periods to anyone, his job descripton according to those who hired him is - 'to raise awareness of the new law and ensure that Scottish government funding is allocated appropriately.'

Again according to those who hired him the role -  "builds on some fantastic work which has been gathering speed across the Tay region for several years, led by a passionate group of people of all genders, ages and backgrounds.
By changing the culture, encouraging debate and removing the stigma around periods, we look forward to supporting the delivery of this important work across the region."


What you have here Figg is something I have seen a million times over. The SNP make a good policy, they make it law, the right wing press cant say anything good about it so they desperetly hunt around for anything they can latch onto and try to turn into a negative, in this case they've sunk as low as huntng out 1 local council appointment in 1 bit of Scotland, hired to make sure the law is enacted and used it to attack the SNP and suggest theyve gone on the Woke (even though they had nothing to do with it), lucky for the press the people who hired him gave him a stupid job title for them to work with and get headlines out of. And thats all this story is, a hatchet job on a good law by the right wing press, its a distraction from the actual law itself the SNP passed as they cant critize it directly easily as its obviously a good thing, so they just attack a title rather than what the job actually entails - as when you find that out its a non-story. }}

And I repeat. The policy is excellent, but hiring a dude is ridiculous. The Independent is not right wing, Ian Blackford is not right wing, and Martina and other concerned women are not right wing. If he was the best candidate there must have been some duds going for the job. It is not a hatchet job, its common sense. Young women do not want to talk to men about periods, they dont even want to talk to their dads about it, they want to talk to other women.

{{ I still dont know what you are objecting to - the job involves adminstration - assuring supply of sanitary products, preparing public spaces to be able to distribute them to those who need them, and raisng awareness that the law exists so women in those situation know they can access help- that would involve putting up flyers, putting information on local social media, organising announcements in schools, day centes and the like - which as manager he'd almost certainly not do in person but allocate as there are many schools and stuff in Tayside. So exactly what about this role is it inapprpropriate for a man to do? }}

The Independent is not right wing, Ian Blackford is not right wing, and Martina and other concerned women are not right wing.- Figg

{{No but the Independent is right-on, as is Martina- ready to jump on anything that seems to be an attack on women- and right wing reporting that Scotland just appointed a man its first period monitor or whatever silly thing Tayside Council called him, and implying he is going to be explaining to young girls what a period is and patronising old ladies about their menstrual cycle is the reason they have jumped in. Same reason its rilled you in fact. Just a shame none of that is true or in the job description. Youve all fallen for how the right wing press undermine any good thing the SNP do by how they twist the reporting of it.

As for Blackford, he gave a politicians answer when hit with a cultural question you dont know aything about, its just a stock hedge your bets reply, a play it on the safe side answer, he doesnt condemn it or demand it be changed either you note. }}

Young women do not want to talk to men about periods, they dont even want to talk to their dads about it, they want to talk to other women. - Figg

{{ Bu thats not his job! Girls get all that in school, this has nothing to do about the physical fact of, or explaining periods to anyone, his job is to raise awareness of the new law so girls and women know they can access it.

So take your worse case scenario- this guy goes to talk to girls, a whole assembly hall full of them and he tells them there is a new law which means as of next week the girls toilet in the school will have a sanitary towel dispenser free to use for anyone who needs it, right next to the hand towel dispenser - thats it- thats his job. And to ensure the school has the despenser and products in place.

Now if I was a young girl, say a poorish family, maybe couple sisters and a mother, and my cycle is particulary heavy that month and I use more than normal and I run out but the family budget for the month is gone, luckily I could prepare for this by having grabbed few spares whilst at school. Surely that dignity and self worth it doesnt matter a fig (pun intended!) that it was a man told her the dispenser was there, or that it was  a man allocated the funds for the machines and products? I dont see why this role would be gender locked to women only or how it can be of offense to anyone? }}

It is odd that you are defending this nonsense. But then you have never had a period so cant comprehend how dumb and absurd it is to have a bloke in charge of "period dignity".