No wonder the Scots want out

[Melonfish]

losing scotland from the united kingdom would be a monumental loss to us, however considering the state of this and previous governments i honestly cannot blame them for wanting to leave.

 

[swee'pea99]

What's with the reverse snobbery? The class war-fare? So what where people were educated? It only matters how good a job they are doing. Reverse that anti-Eton sentiment and apply it to your local comprehensive: can you imagine anyone saying "5 of the cabinet committee are from (yah-booh-sucks) the local comprehensive. What sort of country are we living in"? Why would it make the slightest difference?

The fact is, Eton offers one of the best educations available anywhere in the world. I want to be governed by people who have got a clue, and I don't care if their education was at Eton or in Timbuctoo (which as an interesting aside, used to offer the best education in the world 1000+ years ago).

Mike

I'm not going to wade into a morass that properly belongs in another forum section, but I will make two brief points before ducking out.

First, snobbery has nothing to do with it. I just find it depressing to live in a country that's clearly so profoundly conservative-with-a-small-c that we still find ourselves, in the early part of the 21st century, so utterly dominated by a hermetically-sealed caste, essentially unchanged since 1066.

Did you know that after the conquest, William the Conqueror took half the country for himself, gave half of the remainder to the church and the final quarter to his chums, and that as of today, that land remains 90%+ in the same hands? All countries have their rich and poor, it goes without saying. But I know of no other so clearly - and apparently immovably - split between the rulers and the ruled. "The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, God made them high or lowly, and ordered their estate." The (second) sons of the ruling classes used to have the peasants sing that every Sunday, to reassure them that appearances notwithstanding, all was as it should be. They're a little more subtle about things nowadays, but that's all that's changed.

And, second, 'it only matters how good a job they are doing' assumes that politics is functional/managerial - like fixing and maintaining machinery. It isn't. Politics is about more than that. It's about organising basic things like who gets what, and how much. And with old Etonians in charge, no prizes for guessing whose interests will actually be safeguarded and promoted at Westminster.

Why would it make the slightest difference? Well, if you look at more enlightened European nations, not dissimilar to ours in many ways, such as Holland, Denmark, Belgium, you can see just how immensely different things could be, if we weren't as a nation still busy tugging our forelocks to our 'betters'. If we had, say, an education system that wasn't crudely divided along class lines. If we had a system post-education that was genuinely meritocratic, rather than massively distorted by Establishment connections.

I'd be very sorry to see a Yes vote. Even as, I hope, a good European, I feel kin to Scots, in a way I just don't to the French or Germans. But with the way Westminster politics has gone since 1979, I can absolutely understand why so many think there must be a better way, and are keen to have a go at finding one.

 

[asterix]

I'd be very sorry to see a Yes vote. Even as, I hope, a good European, I feel kin to Scots, in a way I just don't to the French or Germans. But with the way Westminster politics has gone since 1979, I can absolutely understand why so many think there must be a better way, and are keen to have a go at finding one.

That's an interesting distinction. It's my opinion that is one way in which the Scots have behaved differently to the English, maybe out of necessity. Nevertheless, Scots have always been good at building bridges with other nations or adapting in other countries. It is characteristic of the English that they prefer others to adapt to their ways. Maybe that is a hangover from the days of the Empire. It is also my opinion that 'we' lost the Empire when those within it began to perceive themselves as being governed by the British rather than it being a consensual relationships, more one of equals. There is something of that in the current English/Scottish situation, perhaps stemming from the attitude whereby the government imposed the 'poll' tax on Scotland as a kind of experiment in the late 1980's.

Incidentally, I do wonder what the BBC would make of a 'yes' result. Would it stand to lose the entire Scottish contribution to its licence revenue? Whilst still having to report Scottish news and being unable to prevent access to their programmes from North of the Border!

It wouldn't like that..

 

[spen666]

Surely what is most important is the best available people are in the relevant posts.

Their education background, gender, sexuality, race , religion, football team supported, marital status etc are irrelevant.

 

[vernon]

Surely what is most important is the best available people are in the relevant posts.

Their education background, gender, sexuality, race , religion, football team supported, marital status etc are irrelevant.

So there's no suitable women?

 

[numbnuts]

The only way to sort this out is to have a re-match of the battle of Culloden

 

[spen666]

So there's no suitable women?

Not sure where this comes from in my post.

I made it clear the important thing is the best available people are in the posts


There may or may not be suitable women. That is to bring gender into the debate.

Whether the best available people are male or female is irrelevant. To harp on about the gender is to miss the point and ends up with people being selectwed for roles on the basis of factors other than ability to do the work.

Is it too hard to understand the concept of the best available person to do a role?

 

[swee'pea99]

Not sure where this comes from in my post.

I made it clear the important thing is the best available people are in the posts


There may or may not be suitable women. That is to bring gender into the debate.

Whether the best available people are male or female is irrelevant. To harp on about the gender is to miss the point and ends up with people being selectwed for roles on the basis of factors other than ability to do the work.

Is it too hard to understand the concept of the best available person to do a role?

Did you read this: "And, second, 'it only matters how good a job they are doing' assumes that politics is functional/managerial - like fixing and maintaining machinery. It isn't. Politics is about more than that. It's about organising basic things like who gets what, and how much."?

 

[vernon]

Not sure where this comes from in my post.

I made it clear the important thing is the best available people are in the posts


There may or may not be suitable women. That is to bring gender into the debate.

Whether the best available people are male or female is irrelevant. To harp on about the gender is to miss the point and ends up with people being selectwed for roles on the basis of factors other than ability to do the work.

Is it too hard to understand the concept of the best available person to do a role?

So by inference you are saying there are no suitable women.

 

[spen666]

Did you read this: "And, second, 'it only matters how good a job they are doing' assumes that politics is functional/managerial - like fixing and maintaining machinery. It isn't. Politics is about more than that. It's about organising basic things like who gets what, and how much."?

I haven't a clue what the relevance of this babble is?

You either want the best people doing a job or you don't?

Do you want the best?

or do you want to settle for 2nd rate?

 

[swee'pea99]

I haven't a clue what the relevance of this babble is?

You either want the best people doing a job or you don't?

Do you want the best?

or do you want to settle for 2nd rate?

I see. You read it but you didn't understand. I understand.

 

[spen666]

I see. You read it but you didn't understand. I understand.

So, do you want the best or do you want 2nd rate?

 

[coffeejo]

So, do you want the best or do you want 2nd rate?

I'm thinking that the male, white, straight, able-bodied, privately-educated, non-working class parliamentary majority has often failed to grasp, let alone address the needs of the majority of people in the country, which shoots your theory in the foot.

 

[User169]

So, do you want the best or do you want 2nd rate?

The fact that the UK's electoral machinery places in power a small group of substantially identical men having substantially similar backgrounds in terms of upbringing, education and professional expertise (or largely conspicuous lack thereof) suggests that it is incapable of identifying the best.

Swee'pea99's post (#24) is important since it points to how we better understand what "the best" might mean in the first place.

 

[vernon]

I haven't a clue what the relevance of this babble is?

You either want the best people doing a job or you don't?

Do you want the best?

or do you want to settle for 2nd rate?

So you're saying that women aren't up to the job.