Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes to stand down as MSP

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm going to try to post my earlier post (which the system refused to accept) in chunks, which will hopefully work and/or will allow me to work out which bit was deemed 'problematic'!

[ProfessorDavey]

Does it? If we have a system where it's difficult to participate in because of having a normal life we restrict the talent pool  considerably.

Err, what exactly do you mean by a normal life. Seems to me you are implying 9-5 job, 5 days a week an easy 20mins from home. And presumably for parents the ability to wave their kids off to school every morning and read a story to them every night. Well the real world waves hello.

[ProfessorDavey]

So do airline pilots have the ability to participate in a normal life ... hmm don't think so. What about professional cricketers ... or nurses, or care assistants working shifts patterns. And what about if your work is face-to-face in central London unless you are earning enough to actually be able to live in central London (which likely means having to work very long hours anyhow)?

[ProfessorDavey]

So all sorts of people have jobs which won't allow then the luxury of 'normal life' in such a traditional manner. So what do they do - well they either choose to continue to work in those professions and accept the consequences or shift careers.

[ProfessorDavey]

Still won't post my last bit

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that people who work should have the ability not to feel as if having a small child is a problem.

I don't think the issue is that she thinks having a small child is a problem - I think she is recognising (as many people do) that some jobs are much more challenging than others when you have a small child. And typically these will be jobs which require you to be aways for considerably periods of time or require you to work in different locations which are a considerable distance from each other.

This would hardly be news to her as she knew full well that being an MSP (or MP) requires you to work in both your constituency and wherever the legislature is based. There is no getting away from those requirements if you are going to do your job effectively, I'm afraid.

[ProfessorDavey]

Forbes flagging some is the issues, and highlighting that she is far from the only one to have raised the issue


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde327y33zzo

OK trying to reply to this one and again the system is refusing my post - I really cannot see where any word I am using could result in a block from the system

Really, really annoying.

Basic message of the blocked post - a creche and a day nursery are entirely different things and a creche is not aimed at her care needs so to complain that it is only open for 3 hours is non-sense as that's what creches are all about. What she needs is a nursery (an entirely different beast).

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think the work of an MSP consists entirely of attending parliament three afternoons a week. There will be committees, informal meetings, representations to attend and work back in the constituency.

I never said it did - indeed I was clear that there is loads of work in the constituency too. But in terms of formal activities as an MSP they are three days a week (tue-thurs), 35 weeks a year. The parliament itself sits in the afternoons, the committee meetings are scheduled in the mornings.

On top of this, Forbes was the deputy First Minister, which is a senior government role. If her family lived next door to Holyrood she probably wouldn't see much of them.

True, but again this is her choice - she could have chosen to maintain a role as a back bench MSP which would have better supported her work/life balance. And you are correct that regardless of where she was based or where her constituency was being in a senior position in government will require very long working hours which will necessarily impact on family life.

I accept that, as things stand, it's really difficult for MSP's to achieve a good work-life balance. I just don't see how that can be changed in any significant way.

That's right and I cannot see how there can be significant changes that would make a major difference without radically affecting the effectiveness of the parliament and the democratic process such as remote working.

But my point upthread (part of the post that got blocked) is that there are many jobs which aren't easily compatible with family life and cannot be made to be. And therefore people choosing those jobs either have to accept the (known) trade-offs or decide to move to a different job (if that is possible). As an extreme example my dad was in the merchant navy. Before he became a family man he'd be away from the UK for months on end traveling to Australia etc. Clearly incompatible with family life - so when he married and had kids he left the navy and took a shore job.

[Nearly Sane]

"Cancel culture row over Kate Forbes Fringe event" - ffs!


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gl7jgpzkno

[ProfessorDavey]

"Cancel culture row over Kate Forbes Fringe event" - ffs!


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gl7jgpzkno

I'm beginning to get rather irritated as the 'cancel culture' or someone is 'cancelled' claims being thrown around left, right and centre when the reality is that someone hasn't been 'cancelled', they've simply not been invited to something where there is no obligation on them to have received an invite.

Organisations, whether festivals, book publishers, newspapers etc are under no obligation to invite any particular person to contribute to their festivals/publications etc. It is up to them who they do and who they do not invite. It is called editorial control. So if they choose not to invite someone that doesn't mean they have been cancelled as there was no obligation for them to receive an invite in the first place. And nor is there an obligation for them to be invited back - that's up to the organisers.

So is Owen Jones cancelled by the Telegraph if they don't invite him to write a regular column for them - nope. Is Jacob Rees-Mogg cancelled if the Morning Star don't invite him to write a regular column for them - nope. Is Richard Dawkins cancelled if a christian festival doesn't invite him to give a talk - nope.

So it is perfectly acceptable for an organisation with a particular political and/or religious ethos to choose not to invite people to participate in their events who have radically differing political and/or religious opinions. And before you start wailing about 'freedom of speech' - this isn't a never has been about forcing all events/publications etc to invite/publish views that the do not agree with. Nope 'freedom of speech' is about ensuring that there are forums to allow all opinions etc to be voiced - and there are, including for Forbes who will no doubt be welcomed at all sorts of other events where her views resonate with theirs (and those events will likely choose not to invite people with radically differing views to Forbes).

So freedom of expression also includes the right to allow organisers of events and publications to choose who they invite and who they do not invite to participate in their festivals/publications. I've not been invited to perform at Glastonbury yet again (despite being a pretty decent singer) - have I been cancelled? Of course not.

Bottom line - 'I've been cancelled' is increasingly becoming a lazy slur when all that has actually happened is that a person has simply not been invited or invited back when their is no obligation for them to be invited/invited back in the first place.

I would also like to point out that Forbes' 'draw' as a speaker will have changed somewhat since her recent announcement - a current Deputy FM and MSP will be a different level of draw than a former Deputy FM and MSP or even a soon-to-be former Deputy FM and MSP

[Nearly Sane]

I'm beginning to get rather irritated as the 'cancel culture' or someone is 'cancelled' claims being thrown around left, right and centre when the reality is that someone hasn't been 'cancelled', they've simply not been invited to something where there is no obligation on them to have received an invite.

Organisations, whether festivals, book publishers, newspapers etc are under no obligation to invite any particular person to contribute to their festivals/publications etc. It is up to them who they do and who they do not invite. It is called editorial control. So if they choose not to invite someone that doesn't mean they have been cancelled as there was no obligation for them to receive an invite in the first place. And nor is there an obligation for them to be invited back - that's up to the organisers.

So is Owen Jones cancelled by the Telegraph if they don't invite him to write a regular column for them - nope. Is Jacob Rees-Mogg cancelled if the Morning Star don't invite him to write a regular column for them - nope. Is Richard Dawkins cancelled if a christian festival doesn't invite him to give a talk - nope.

So it is perfectly acceptable for an organisation with a particular political and/or religious ethos to choose not to invite people to participate in their events who have radically differing political and/or religious opinions. And before you start wailing about 'freedom of speech' - this isn't a never has been about forcing all events/publications etc to invite/publish views that the do not agree with. Nope 'freedom of speech' is about ensuring that there are forums to allow all opinions etc to be voiced - and there are, including for Forbes who will no doubt be welcomed at all sorts of other events where her views resonate with theirs (and those events will likely choose not to invite people with radically differing views to Forbes).

So freedom of expression also includes the right to allow organisers of events and publications to choose who they invite and who they do not invite to participate in their festivals/publications. I've not been invited to perform at Glastonbury yet again (despite being a pretty decent singer) - have I been cancelled? Of course not.

Bottom line - 'I've been cancelled' is increasingly becoming a lazy slur when all that has actually happened is that a person has simply not been invited or invited back when their is no obligation for them to be invited/invited back in the first place.

I would also like to point out that Forbes' 'draw' as a speaker will have changed somewhat since her recent announcement - a current Deputy FM and MSP will be a different level of draw than a former Deputy FM and MSP or even a soon-to-be former Deputy FM and MSP

Yes, it's lazy terminology. Take it uo with the BBC. And yes, people do have a right to choose what thet put on but along with the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, it's lazy terminology. Take it uo with the BBC. And yes, people do have a right to choose what thet put on but along with the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect.

But the Library one is also the same.

From what I've read there are about 500 books in the collection for the exhibition which are supposed to represent books people have found in local libraries that have shaped them. Well although I'm sure this particular book is available from the National Library I doubt very much that it is standard fair in local libraries (as it is a highly specialist book) and therefore not really the type of book the project was thinking about.

And note again that the public call was to recommend or nominate books - this wasn't a public ballot (or we'd get Booky McBookface) so the organisers would have made a selection from the (presumably huge number) of recommendations to reflect the kind of books people have come across in their local libraries that have been important to them.

And as there are only 500 books (from the approx hundred million published in the last 100 years) about 99.9995% of books also didn't get to be finally selected. Are you really suggesting that this book is in the most important or significant 500 books published in the last 100 years.

So once again - it wasn't 'cancelled' it just wasn't selected as it isn't really the kind of book they were asking the public about. Of course there are all sorts of 'write-in' campaigns around certain political issues and I suspect those books also didn't make the cut either as that isn't what the exhibition is about.

[Nearly Sane]

But the Library one is also the same.

From what I've read there are about 500 books in the collection for the exhibition which are supposed to represent books people have found in local libraries that have shaped them. Well although I'm sure this particular book is available from the National Library I doubt very much that it is standard fair in local libraries (as it is a highly specialist book) and therefore not really the type of book the project was thinking about.

And note again that the public call was to recommend or nominate books - this wasn't a public ballot (or we'd get Booky McBookface) so the organisers would have made a selection from the (presumably huge number) of recommendations to reflect the kind of books people have come across in their local libraries that have been important to them.

And as there are only 500 books (from the approx hundred million published in the last 100 years) about 99.9995% of books also didn't get to be finally selected. Are you really suggesting that this book is in the most important or significant 500 books published in the last 100 years.

So once again - it wasn't 'cancelled' it just wasn't selected as it isn't really the kind of book they were asking the public about. Of course there are all sorts of 'write-in' campaigns around certain political issues and I suspect those books also didn't make the cut either as that isn't what the exhibition is about.

It was chosen not to appear despite having many nominations because of its content.

I note that it's three years since Jerry Sadowitz had his gig cancelled - see thread

https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=19094.msg848654#msg848654


Meanwhile the govt is criminalising oaps for wee cardboard signs.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, it's lazy terminology. Take it uo with the BBC. And yes, people do have a right to choose what thet put on but along with the removal of the Women who Wouldn't Wheesht book from the National Library of Scotland, see Teans, thread, this removal of access for legal views ilhas a silencing effect.

Oh and unexpectedly it is a lie:

https://www.thenational.scot/news/25387374.national-library-scotland-responds-claim-banned-book/

So all 535 recommended books have been displayed - with 200 in the main display and the other 323 available on the shelves in an open reading room. Oh and the book received err .. just four ... recommendations!

So nope not banned, not cancelled. Not even not selected, but part of the exhibition, just not in the top 200 in the main display. And are you really saying that this book is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years

But then it is easy to scream 'cancelled' and 'banned' when the facts suggest something entirely different.

[ProfessorDavey]

It was chosen not to appear ...

Wrong - it was selected and displayed in the open reading room along with 323 of the 535 nominated. It just didn't make the final cut of 200 in the main display.

... despite having many nominations because of its content.

Err - four nominations. You clearly have a different definition of many than the rest of us. But hey ho, why bother with facts when you have a political agenda to promulgate.

[Nearly Sane]

Wrong - it was selected and displayed in the open reading room along with 323 of the 535 nominated. It just didn't make the final cut of 200 in the main display.
Err - four nominations. You clearly have a different definition of many than the rest of us. But hey ho, why bother with facts when you have a political agenda to promulgate.

From the article


'National Library of Scotland chief executive Amina Shah said the book should not be included in the most public-facing display due to the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library.  Drummond Bone, the chair of the board, agreed.'

[ProfessorDavey]

From the article


'National Library of Scotland chief executive Amina Shah said the book should not be included in the most public-facing display due to the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library.  Drummond Bone, the chair of the board, agreed.'

So what - it was nominated with measly four nominations. And it is on display - I suspect those in the top 200 books in the main display got rather more than four nominations.

So it isn't cancelled or banned - nope it is on display in the exhibition. But hey ho, why let the facts intrude when you have a political agenda to promulgate.

Are you really suggesting that this book is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years.

[Nearly Sane]

So what - it was nominated with measly four nominations. And it is on display - I suspect those in the top 200 books in the main display got rather more than four nominations.

So it isn't cancelled or banned - nope it is on display in the exhibition. But hey ho, why let the facts intrude when you have a political agenda to promulgate.

Are you really suggesting that this book is in the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years.

So it was it's content whereas you said it just didn't make the final cut in contradiction to me saying that ot was its content.

[ProfessorDavey]

So it was it's content whereas you said it just didn't make the final cut in contradiction to me saying that ot was its content.

I doubt it given that it only had 4 nominations - clearly the write-in campaign didn't work very well! I suspect many others had far more and those would be the ones most in line to be in the most public display. But ultimately this is a curated collection and as I mentioned earlier this book (or any similar book of essays on political topics) aren't really what the exhibition is about - it is about books that people have come across in local libraries that have shaped their lives.

And I note you have failed to answer my question - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?

So NS seeing as you are rather nearer to Edinburgh why don't you pop along to the National Library and tell me whether it is on display or not. If it has been banned or cancelled then surely it would be ... err ... banned or cancelled not freely available and on display in the Library as seems to be the case.

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt it given that it only had 4 nominations - clearly the write-in campaign didn't work very well! I suspect many others had far more and those would be the ones most in line to be in the most public display. But ultimately this is a curated collection and as I mentioned earlier this book (or any similar book of essays on political topics) aren't really what the exhibition is about - it is about books that people have come across in local libraries that have shaped their lives.

And I note you have failed to answer my question - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?

So NS seeing as you are rather nearer to Edinburgh why don't you pop along to the National Library and tell me whether it is on display or not. If it has been banned or cancelled then surely it would be ... err ... banned or cancelled not freely available and on display in the Library as seems to be the case.

And yet the statement by chief executive is that it was its content.

[ProfessorDavey]

And yet the statement by chief executive is that it was its content.

No it didn't - there is no mention whether this book was in the top 200 for nominations (not that it was a Booky McBookface competition). But realistically it would have to have been a really sh*t call out if it only took 4 nominations to be in the top 200 books of the past 100 years.

So again noting no answer to my question - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?

[Nearly Sane]

No it didn't - there is no mention whether this book was in the top 200 for nominations (not that it was a Booky McBookface competition). But realistically it would have to have been a really sh*t call out if it only took 4 nominations to be in the top 200 books of the past 100 years.

So again noting no answer to my question - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?

Again the quote is


National Library of Scotland chief executive Amina Shah said the book should not be included in the most public-facing display due to the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library.  Drummond Bone, the chair of the board, agreed.'

I don't understand the relevance of your question

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't understand the relevance of your question

The relevance of the question is that it is the purpose of the exhibition:

https://media.nls.uk/news/major-exhibition-a-love-letter-to-libraries

https://media.nls.uk/news/national-library-of-scotland-unveils-landmark-centenary-programme

So the whole purpose of the exhibition is to curate a collection of the most important books that have shaped people's lives since the opening of the library 100 years ago. And to select the most significant 200 for the main display with other nominations available on the shelves in an open reading room.

So I ask yet again - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?

[ProfessorDavey]

The system is refusing to allow me to post again - think it might be the quotes I originally tried to add to the post above.

Won't allow me to post, but both the links above indicate that the purpose of the call was to identify a small selection of books over the past 100 years that are considered to be the most important in shaped people's lives, via both public recommendations and also by asking key Scottish literary figures.

So I ask yet again - do you really think this book is amongst the top 200 books that have shaped people's lives over the past 100 years?

[Gordon]

Presumably then that can include books that are changing people lives in current times too?